CA Unpub Decisions

G.M., mother of the minor, appeals the judgment of disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 358, 395; undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts order denying her reunification services. Court affirm.

Appellant, the mother of T.U. (the minor), appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating appellants parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395; undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying appellants request for a bonding assessment. Appellant also claims the failure by the juvenile court to apply the statutory exception to termination of parental rights based on appellants relationship to the minor ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) requires reversal of the order terminating her parental rights. Disagreeing with those claims, Court affirm.

Raul Alaniz was driving a pickup belonging to his employer, Black Dog Farms of California, and crashed into a tractor driven by Jesus Nunez, who suffered extensive injuries. A jury found by special verdict that although Alaniz was negligent, his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Nunez.
Nunez contends the trial court erred because it did not: instruct the jury with Vehicle Code, section 21753; comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 614; and, grant his motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial. He also contends that, as a matter of law, the jury's verdict is erroneous. Court affirm.

Defendants appeal their convictions of robbery (Pen. Code, 211). True findings were made that each had suffered a prior prison enhancement ( 667, subd. (a)(1)) and each was sentenced to a total term of 11 years.
On appeal, they contend there was insufficient evidence to support the robbery
convictions, the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during cross examination and closing argument, the court's response to the jury's question was inadequate, and their motions for a new trial should have been granted. Court affirm the judgments.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (a)) involving the personal use of a knife. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1).) She was sentenced to an upper term of 11 years for the voluntary manslaughter plus one year for the knife use.
On appeal, Parrish contends her conviction must be reversed because the court failed to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter and unconsciousness and gave misleading instructions on the prosecutor's burden of proof. She also contends her upper term sentence was unconstitutional because it was based on facts not found by a jury nor admitted by her. Court agree with her last contention and remand to the trial court for resentencing. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Jessica T. and David H. appeal an order terminating their parental rights to their son, Jay H. Jessica asserts the court prejudicially erred by not addressing her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition before it held the section 366.26 hearing. Both parents contend the court erred by not applying the exception to adoption of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). In addition, they maintain the court erred by finding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply, and each parent joins the other's arguments. Court reverse and remand to allow compliance with the ICWA.

Charlotte Spadaro appeals the denial of a petition for writ of mandate. The trial court affirmed an administrative decision upholding the City of Rialtos (the city) seizure of approximately 180 dogs and cats from Spadaros kennel pursuant to Penal Code section 597.1 without affording her a pre-seizure hearing, and its imposition of approximately $28,000 in costs of impoundment and care as a condition of returning the animals to Spadaro. Spadaro contends that Penal Code section 597.1 applies only to abandoned animals and that in any event, the conditions at the kennel did not warrant seizure without a prior hearing. Court affirm the order.

Appellant (father) is the father of the now five-year-old child, Katelynn E. Father challenges the juvenile courts denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for modification and the subsequent termination of his parental rights to Katelynn. Father argues that the courts orders are tainted by extrinsic fraud perpetrated by Katelynns mother (mother) when she failed to identify father as the childs father until one year into the dependency. This fraud, father argues, prevented father from participating in the proceedings, and in Katelynns life, until it was too late for him to obtain custody of the child.

Appellant filed an independent action in equity based on extrinsic fraud to set aside a final order entered in a prior probate proceeding of his fathers estate. He now appeals from the judgment dismissing his case after the trial court sustained a demurrer to his second amended complaint without leave to amend. As we shall explain, the fraud alleged constituted only intrinsic fraud and Ross failed to adequately plead that he exercised diligence in pursuing this action. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant challenges his conviction for kidnapping and carjacking, contending the trial court erred in denying his motions for mistrial. Collaso argues the prosecutor violated his right to a fair trial when she (a) asked the victim if he believed his assailant was a gang member; (b) introduced an audiotaped interview in which the word gangsters was heard; and (c) made a reference to gangs during closing argument.
Court conclude the foregoing did not deny Collasos due process right to a fair trial. The witness never answered the prosecutors question on whether the assailant was a gang member and the trial court admonition to the jury cured any prejudice from the question. The audiotapes reference to gangsters was a barely audible and random reference without context, furnishing no basis for the jury to believe the comment referred to Collaso. Moreover, the defense did not request an admonition after the gangster reference. Finally, the prosecutors closing argument did not allude to gangs, but concerned a fair comment on the evidence presented regarding Collasos threat to the victim. Accordingly, Court affirm.

A crimnal law decision regarding driving under the influence of alcohol with a prior felony conviction within 10 years, driving with a blood alcohol of .08 or greater with a prior felony conviction within 10 years, driving when his license was suspended or revoked with a prior conviction of the same offense, and driving when his license was suspended or revoked for a conviction of driving under the influence.

A criminal law decision regarding second degree burglary, one count of petty theft, and two prior prison terms. Court Affirm.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.