CA Unpub Decisions

Mario P. appeals from the order of wardship after the juvenile court found he had inflicted corporal injury to his childs mother in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a). The only issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court erred in failing to declare on the record whether the offense was a misdemeanor or a felony. Court remand for the juvenile court to exercise its discretion to declare the offense a misdemeanor or a felony as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702.

Petitioner, Kenya T., seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Court find sufficient evidence supports the juvenile courts decision to deny petitioner reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and therefore deny the petition.

Mother seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating her family reunification services and setting a permanent plan hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26; Cal. Rules of Court, former rule 38.1, now rule 8.452.) Mother claims reasonable reunification services were not provided, and error in the court's finding that she failed to make substantive progress in her case plan. Court deny the petition.

Petitioners (mother) and Leonard G. (father) are the parents of two young girls Ruby and Amber who were detained by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) after father was jailed and mother and the girls were living as transients following mothers eviction from a domestic violence shelter. The parents received over 18 months of reunification services, not once complaining about the reasonableness of those services. However, at the conclusion of a contested 18-month review hearing, counsel for mother claimed for the first time that the Department did not provide her with reasonable reunification services during the first six months of the reunification period. Counsel for the father argued only that the children would not be at risk if they were returned to his custody. The juvenile court disagreed. At the recommendation of both the Department and counsel for the children, the court terminated reunification services and scheduled a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.)The parents filed separate writ petitions challenging the juvenile courts decision. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Both claim the juvenile courts finding that the Department provided them with reasonable reunification services is not supported by substantial evidence. In addition, father claims that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding that the children would be at substantial risk if returned to his custody. The Department opposes the granting of relief.
Court conclude the parents contentions lack merit. Accordingly, Court deny the petitions.

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing on an amended subsequent petition, the Sacramento County Juvenile Court found that minor Shannon W. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed forcible lewd acts against a girl under age 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (b)(1 count one), assault with intent to rape (Pen. Code, 22 count two), attempted rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2), 664--count four), false imprisonment (Pen. Code, 236 count five), and forcible rape in concert (Pen. Code, 264.1 count seven). The minor was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (hereafter DJF), for up to nine years but not to exceed age 25.
On appeal, the minor contends (1) there was no substantial evidence that he would benefit from a DJF commitment, and (2) his federal constitutional rights were violated when the juvenile court committed him to DJF without substantial evidence of probable benefit. Court affirm the judgment.

Nazmi Toshi, an Albanian immigrant, hung himself from a tree one-half mile south of the Freeport Bridge in Sacramento. Workers compensation benefits for his four children and their mother depend on whether at the time of the hanging he was acting under an irresistible impulse caused by his industrial back injury. One expert opined he was, but the other expert concluded that his recent incarcerations for domestic violence, the deteriorating relationship with his wife, his brothers illness, his problems with a daughter he had fathered in Germany, his alcoholism, and his inability to be with his children, rather than an irresistible impulse caused by the industrial accident, resulted in the suicide. Because there is substantial evidence to support the finding by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Board) that the decedents suicide was not the result of an irresistible impulse caused by an industrial injury, Court affirm.

jury convicted Apollo R. Huhn of the first degree murder of Steven Brucker and conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary. Huhn appeals, contending the trial court (1) improperly denied his request to instruct the jury on the defense of duress; (2) incorrectly responded to a jury note; and (3) wrongfully denied his new trial motion based on juror misconduct. He also contends that the cumulative effect of these errors mandates reversal of the judgment and that the abstract of judgment and sentencing minutes erroneously reflect imposition of a restitution fine.
Court agree that the trial erred in denying Huhn's motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct and reverse the judgment. This conclusion moots any error regarding the restitution fine and the jury note. Because this case may be retried, Court address Huhn's contentions regarding the duress instruction to guide the trial court on remand. (Code Civ. Proc., 43.)

Defendant appeals imposition of the upper term for possessing methamphetamine for sale in SCD197143. On June 6, 2006, Castaneda entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing methamphetamine for sale and admitted a prior conviction of transporting a controlled substance in SCD197143. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378, 11370.2, subd. (c).) The court immediately sentenced him to prison for six years: the three-year upper term for possessing methamphetamine for sale with a consecutive three years for the prior drug conviction. It imposed concurrent terms in SCD183097 and in SCD166194, cases in which Castaneda was on probation when he committed the crimes in SCD197143. Castaneda contends the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term in SCD197143.
The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
As to any claim the imposition of the upper term based on facts determined by the court violates the holding in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856]), Castaneda's plea agreement authorized the trial court to "determine the existence or non existence of any aggravating facts which may be used to increase my sentence on any count or allegation above the middle term . . . ." The judgment is affirmed.

Karen Busch appeals the entry of an injunction under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, enjoining her from harassing Lori Bradburn (Bradburn) and members of Bradburn's immediate family. She also appeals from the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial and a motion to set aside and vacate the judgment. Busch argues (1) that the trial court improperly limited the evidence that she could present at trial and (2) that substantial evidence does not support the trial court's decision. Court conclude that Busch's arguments lack merit. Accordingly, Court affirm.

In superior court case No. SCD176226 (SCD176226), on October 20, 2003, Armando Gomez, Jr., entered a negotiated guilty plea to burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.)[1]He admitted having served two prior prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b), 668).) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Gomez on probation for three years including a condition that he obey all laws. On April 18, 2006, the court held an evidentiary hearing on an alleged probation violation in SCD176226, simultaneously with the preliminary hearing on a new charge in case No. SCD197985 (SCD197985). The trial court revoked probation in SCD176226 and sentenced Gomez to prison for three years: the two year middle term for burglary, enhanced one year for a prior prison term. The court struck the second prior prison term enhancement. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the issues Gomez's raises, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Gomez on this appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Angela R., the mother of Aaron V. and Moises V., seeks extraordinary writ relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452); she challenges the juvenile court order that terminated reunification services after 18 months and set a section 366.26 hearing. Angela contends there was insufficient evidence that returning the children to her custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the children.
Court issued an order to show cause, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) responded, and the parties waived oral argument. Court review the petition on its merits and grant it.

Jennifer T. seeks writ review of juvenile court orders terminating reunification services and setting a hearing to select and implement a permanency plan for her son, J.T., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.Despite Jennifer's progress and her cooperation with services, substantial evidence supports the finding she did not make the substantive progress necessary to ensure J.T.'s safety, protection and physical well being in her care. The court did not err when it found that returning J.T. to Jennifer's custody would create a serious risk of detriment to the child. ( 366.26, subd. (a).) The petition is denied.

Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
Court offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)). In return, defendant was sentenced to 90 days in county jail and placed on probation for a period of three years on various terms and conditions. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the probation condition requiring him to keep the probation officer informed of whether he owns any pets is invalid, and (2) the probation condition requiring him to submit to and cooperate in field interrogations infringes upon his Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self incrimination and is overly broad. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.