CA Unpub Decisions

The adoptive parents of Jeremiah W. his paternal grandmother, D.Z., and her husband, Andres Z. (the Z.'s) appeal from an order granting the request of Jeremiah's birth mother, Vicki N., to enforce a postadoption contact agreement. The Z.'s claim (1) that due to their relocation to Florida, the California courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce the postadoption contact agreement; and (2) that the trial court erroneously enforced the agreement for visitation between Jeremiah and his birth mother without a recommendation for visitation from Jeremiah's psychological counselor.
Court conclude that the Z.'s contentions lack merit, and, accordingly, Court affirm.

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation. Court affirm.

On October 4, 2005, Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD192299 (hereafter SCD192299). (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a).) The court deferred entry of judgment and ordered him to enroll in a drug rehabilitation program. (Pen. Code, 1000, et. seq.) On October 24 Bartlett was arrested for possessing drugs and paraphernalia. The court remanded him to custody. On December 15, 2005, Bartlett entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance in San Diego County Superior Court case No. SCD194543 (hereafter SCD194543). On February 14, 2006, the court placed him on three years' probation in both cases, including a condition he serve 365 days in custody that the court stayed pending drug treatment. On May 2 Bartlett entered a guilty plea in San Diego County Superior Court case No. SCD198310 to possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359) and admitted violating a probation condition in SCD192299 and SCD194543. On May 31 the court revoked and reinstated probation in SCD192299 and SCD194543 subject to conditions he serve consecutive terms of 365 days in custody in those cases. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted Eric Angel Thomas of sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5), and found true the allegations Thomas served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and suffered a serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12. Thomas contends: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by declining to dismiss the prior felony conviction allegation; and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the possession for sale conviction. The judgment is affirmed.

Frederick B. and Antoinette B. appeal a judgment terminating parental rights to their son, Richard B. Frederick also appeals an order denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petition, and an order denying a second section 388 modification petition on its merits. Court affirm the judgment and orders.

In Superior Court of San Diego County case No. SCD197676, Cedric E. Green entered a negotiated guilty plea to robbery on public transportation (first degree robbery). (Pen. Code, 211/212.5)[2]In SCD197928, he entered a negotiated guilty plea to second degree robbery. ( 211.) In SCD198465, he entered a negotiated guilty plea to attempted murder ( 664/187) and admitted personal use of a deadly weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and inflicting great bodily injury. ( 12022.7.) In SCD198875, he entered negotiated guilty pleas to battery on a law enforcement officer causing injury ( 243, subd. (c)) and resisting an executive officer ( 69).
The court sentenced Green to prison for a stipulated term of 16 years, eight months: the nine-year upper term for attempted murder, enhanced one year for deadly weapon use, and three years for inflicting great bodily injury, with consecutive terms of 16 months for robbery on public transportation, one year for robbery, eight months for battery on a law enforcement officer causing injury, and eight months for resisting an executive officer (one-third the middle terms). The court issued a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) The judgment is affirmed.

jury convicted Anthony Rene Alvarez (also known as Smiley) of receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Penal Code 496d, subd. (a), count 1); and receiving stolen checks ( 496, subd. (a), counts 2, 4, and 5); he was acquitted of one count of receiving stolen checks ( 496, subd. (a), count 3.) In separate proceedings, the court found true that Alvarez had four prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law. The court sentenced him to 25 years to life.
Alvarez contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying both his request for a pinpoint jury instruction, and a motion for mistrial based on a claimed error under Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610, 617. Court affirm.

Gloria R. appeals the findings and orders of the juvenile court made at the 12-month review hearing. She contends the court erred when it did not return her children to her custody or, alternatively, did not extend her reunification services to the 18-month review date. Gloria also challenges the court's finding that she was provided reasonable services. Court affirm the findings and orders of the juvenile court.

Elizabeth L. appeals the judgments declaring her minor sons, John L. and Joseph L. (together the minors), dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and removing them from her custody. Elizabeth contends the court erred by not making a specific visitation order. Court affirm the judgments.

Adrian C. appeals following the jurisdictional hearing and subsequent custody orders and termination of juvenile dependency jurisdiction. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting his custody of a child or his status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny his requests to review the record for error and to address his Anders issue. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
Adrian C.'s counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

The People (appellants or the People) appeal the concurrent prison sentences of Timothy Sean Ziegman (defendant) as inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Three Strikes law and request reversal and remand for resentencing. In addition, the People argue that the trial court unlawfully dismissed one of defendants prior strike convictions. Acknowledging that concurrent sentences are unlawful under the California Supreme Courts ruling in People v. Casper, defendant agrees that the case must be remanded for resentencing, but only so that the court can clarify its intent in light of Casper. Defendant maintains that the prior conviction was properly dismissed pursuant to the requirements of Penal Code[2] section 1385. Court remand, with instructions, for resentencing.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to evading a police officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)). In return, the remaining allegation for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)) was dismissed, and defendant was granted three years of formal probation on various terms and conditions, including serving 150 days in county jail. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the probation condition requiring him to give the probation officer 24 hours written notice of any change in his pet ownership is unreasonable; and (2) the probation condition requiring him to submit to and cooperate in field interrogations infringes upon his Fifth Amendment constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, is unconstitutionally overbroad, and must be modified. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

This case arises from a dispute between the owner of an onion packing facility and the owner of a nearby dairy over allegations the packing facilitys business was damaged by odors, pests, and dust generated by the dairy. In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of nonsuit, the facilitys owner challenges a series of pretrial discovery rulings by the trial court limiting the prospective testimony of the facilitys designated experts regarding the type and amount of its damages. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Timothy Earl Hissong was convicted of six counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14 and sentenced to 45 years to life. On appeal he challenges the courts imposition of a $20 court security fee. He argues that, because the Legislature created this fee after he committed the crimes, the court improperly applied it to him retroactively. Court disagree.