CA Unpub Decisions

Between February 28, 2003, and March 27, 2003, defendant Darcey Susanne Stewart cashed checks and used credit accounts of 76-year-old Frank Joaquin without the permission of his son and daughter-in-law who had power of attorney. Defendant cashed checks at the 99 Club and used Joaquins credit account at Target.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to theft from an elder or dependent adult (Pen. Code, 368, subd. (d)) in exchange for no state prison at the outset and a grant of probation for a term of five years subject to certain terms and conditions including 90 days in county jail with a recommendation for the alternative work project and victim restitution in the amount of $3,789.52. The offense would be reduced to a misdemeanor upon payment of victim restitution in full. Defendant appeals.
Court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment to reflect a restitution fine in the amount of $200 and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Charles Adam Houk pled no contest to first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187), and guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code, 187, 664) and admitted to personal discharge of a firearm for the murder count (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (c)(2)). The trial court sentenced him to 59 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court should have allowed him to withdraw his plea and that his upper term sentence for attempted murder violates Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely). Court affirm the judgment.

After serving a portion of a one-year sentence imposed pursuant to a plea of guilty or no contest to exhibiting harmful matter to a minor in violation of Penal Code section 313.1, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor, defendant Gene Louis Newman filed three postconviction motions (two to modify his sentence and one to retract his plea), all of which were denied by the trial court. Defendant appeals the denial of those motions as error, and further contends the trial court failed to continue prosecution of the case in a timely manner following this courts issuance of a remittitur. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of defendants motions, Court dismiss the appeal.

Defendant Tiambra Marie Hennessey argued with the victim in his home, grabbed a steak knife and cut him on the arm. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) in exchange for a sentencing lid of the low term of two years, or in the event the court granted probation, outpatient treatment. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for a term of three years subject to certain terms and conditions including 10 months in county jail and mental health counseling.
Defendant appeals. Court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.). The appeal is dismissed.

P.R. (appellant), the mother of B.R. (the minor), appeals from an order of the juvenile court denying appellants petition for modification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388, 395; further unspecified section references are to this code.) Appellant contends the juvenile court committed reversible error in denying her petition for modification, which sought a bonding study, without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Court affirm the order.

A jury convicted Ronald Arthur Weaver of committing a total of six lewd acts upon two children under the age of 14 in violation of Penal Code[1]section 288, subdivision (a): Three upon Alyssa R. (counts 1-3, hereafter the Alyssa charges),[2]and three upon Natalie T. (counts 5-7, hereafter the Natalie charges).[3] The jury found Weaver not guilty of a fourth charged lewd act he allegedly committed upon Alyssa (count 4: touching Alyssa's vagina with his tongue). The jury found true the enhancement allegation in each of counts 1 through 3 and 5 through 7 that Weaver committed an offense against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivisions (b), (c) and (e).
The court sentenced Weaver to a total prison term of 75 years to life, consisting of an indeterminate term of 15 years to life on count 1, a concurrent 15-years-to-life term on count 2, and 15-years-to-life terms on counts 3, 5, 6 and 7, which the court ordered served consecutively to the terms imposed on counts 1 and 2.
On appeal, Weaver contends (1) the court violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process by denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him, which was based on his claim that he suffered prejudice as a result of a delay in arresting him; (2) the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to sever the charges involving Natalie (counts 5-7) from the charges involving Alyssa (counts 1-4); (3) the court erred in denying his motion to quash the search warrant for his home and to suppress the images of nude female children found on his computer, because the totality of the circumstances "just don't add up to probable cause"; (4) the court (a) violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection by admitting testimony describing the photographs of nude female children seized from his computer to be used as propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1108; and (b) abused its discretion by admitting those image descriptions under Evidence Code section 352; and (5) the court violated his due process right to be convicted only on proof beyond a reasonable doubt by instructing the jury under CALJIC No. 2.50.01, thereby permitting the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the computer images were child pornography, and then use those images as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the charged offenses. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

A jury found in favor of defendant Sharp Memorial Hospital (Sharp) in Plaintiffs Candace and Wayne Wah's negligence action against Sharp. On appeal, the Wahs contend (1) the court's order excluding standard of care testimony by the treating physician and (2) its modification of jury instructions without notice to the parties were prejudicial errors. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury found Bernardo Velasquez guilty of kidnapping for robbery, robbery and other offenses. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the procedural history and facts of the case and possible but not arguable issues, and requesting that this court review the entire record for error. We notified Velasquez of his right to file a brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Court have reviewed the entire record and conclude there is no arguable issue. Court affirm the judgment.

In this appeal and writ proceeding, Juan Padilla challenges an order committing him to the custody of the Department of Mental Health after a jury found he was a sexually violent predator (SVP). He raises several contentions of error arising from the fact that he was not personally examined by a defense expert. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the SVP finding. Court reject his arguments and affirm the order.

The juvenile court declared Sonny R. a ward after entering a true finding he committed assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) to benefit and promote a street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The court placed Sonny on probation and committed him to Breaking Cycles program for a maximum term of 240 days. Sonny contends there is insufficient evidence to support the true finding he committed assault with a deadly weapon. Court agree.

Lance M., a juvenile, appeals the judgment finding true a violation of Penal Code section 484 (misdemeanor petty theft). He contends: (1) the trial court minute order to provide a DNA sample must be stricken; and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the true finding under an aiding and abetting theory.
The judgment is modified to strike the order for a DNA sample. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Tomas H. appeals a judgment of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights to his minor daughter, Fiona H., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Tomas contends: (1) the court erred by denying his section 388 petition for modification seeking to have Fiona returned to his care; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding the beneficial parent child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating his parental rights. Court affirm the judgment.

Cassandra P., the mother of M.N. (M.), appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 366.26. Cassandra contends the juvenile court erred by denying a hearing on her section 388 petition and by terminating her parental rights without first making a finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Cassandra also contends the court erred by not applying the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)). Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

A jury convicted Douglass L. Crenshaw of first degree murder committed during the commission of a robbery and burglary and by using a deadly weapon. The court sentenced him to prison for life without the possibility of parole. Crenshaw petitions for a writ of habeas corpus contending the sentencing court improperly imposed a parole revocation restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.45[1]("In every case where a person is convicted of a crime and whose sentence includes a period of parole, the court shall at the time of imposing the restitution fine pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4, assess an additional parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount . . . .").
The judgment is modified to strike the restitution fine under section 1202.45. The superior court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the modification and forward it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.