CA Unpub Decisions

On May 15, 2006, the court readjudged appellant, David R., a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) after it found true an allegation that he committed battery on an officer (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (b)). On May 31, 2006, the court committed David to juvenile hall for 90 days, to be served consecutively to his current commitment, set the maximum term of confinement as two years and two months, reimposed various probation conditions, and credited him with 389 days of predisposition custody credit.
On appeal, David contends the probation conditions prohibiting him from (1) associating with anyone unless approved of by his parents or probation officer and (2) possessing deadly or dangerous weaponsare constitutionally vague and overbroad. David also contends, and the People concede, he is entitled to an additional day of predisposition custody credit. As we shall explain, although we reject Davids contention with respect to the prohibition against possession of dangerous and deadly weapons, we conclude the other probation condition should be modified to expressly state that he must have knowledge of whom his parents or the probation officer disapprove. Court also agree that the predisposition custody credits must be modified.

Valentine Lopez appeals from a judgment entered following his no contest plea on May 1, 2006, to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 212.5, subd. (c)) and admission of the personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b)). The negotiated disposition called for a sentence of no longer than twelve years.
At the sentencing hearing on June 6, 2006, the trial judge questioned the legal authority for Lopezs request to stay the sentence on the firearm allegation, but said he would not stay it even if had the authority, stating the Court does not believe that in this particular case the interest [sic] of justice would warrant it. The court denied probation and sentenced Lopez to the low term of two years for the robbery and 10 years for the firearm allegation, for a total of 12 years. The court gave Lopez credit for a total of 123 days in custody.
Lopez timely filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2006. The judgment is affirmed.

On July 2, 2004, Lockett pleaded no contest to one count of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a))[1]and one count of resisting an officer ( 148, subd. (a)(1)) on the condition he be granted probation and serve one year in county jail. On August 2, 2004, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Lockett on probation with various conditions including that he serve one year locally. On October 27, 2005, the People filed a petition to revoke probation for failure to obey all laws. The court summarily revoked probation pending a contested hearing. The judgment is affirmed.

Vallery H. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her four-year-old daughter, Barbara. Appellant contends the court erred by not finding termination would be detrimental to Barbara based either on their parent/child relationship or Barbaras sibling relationship ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A) & (E)). On review, Court disagree and affirm.

On March 24, 2006, a criminal complaint was filed against appellant, Sylvia Star Podesto, alleging felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, count one) and felony second degree burglary of a department store (Pen. Code, 459, count two). On April 27, 2006, appellant entered into a plea agreement in which she would admit a felony violation of count one and a misdemeanor violation of count two. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Antonio Muratalla Coyazo was convicted of six counts involving the attempted murder, kidnapping and carjacking of one victim, and the robbery or attempted robbery of four others. He claims a number of errors, including the improper admission of his confession and hearsay evidence, the lack of sufficient evidence on several charges, and sentencing errors. The only contention with any merit is defendants claim that he was erroneously sentenced to the upper term pursuant to Cunningham v. California (2007) U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). The case is therefore remanded for a new sentencing hearing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Heather Orey appeals from the trial courts grant of a civil harassment restraining order against her. She argues the inadequacy of her attorney and judicial error and bias. She also contends that attorney fees and costs of $1860 were improperly awarded. Court find that none of these contentions have merit and affirm the judgment.

Angela O. appeals from the trial courts orders made at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, subdivision (c),[1]six-month review hearing regarding her 14-year-old daughter, A. The court reduced Angelas visits and telephone contact with A., and refused to order conjoint counseling for them. Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm the orders.

Janet W. (Mother) appeals from an order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 terminating parental rights to Jacob W. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated). Jacobs father (Father) does not appeal. Jacobs counsel has filed a letter brief in support of affirmance.
Mother contends: (1) substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding that Jacob is likely to be adopted, and (2) the evidence in the record fails to establish compliance with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. (ICWA).
As to the first contention, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts determination that Jacob likely will be adopted. As to the second contention, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) has moved to augment the record with, and requested judicial notice of, various documents pertaining to ICWA notice. Jacob has joined in the motion and the request. We grant the motion to augment and the request for judicial notice because the declarations supporting them are sufficient to establish the documents are from Jacobs case file and/or are court records. The augmented record, together with the documents of which we take judicial notice, establishes that the juvenile court and SSA fully complied with ICWA notice requirements and that ICWA does not apply to Jacob. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Defendant John Christopher Lambert pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery and one count of commercial burglary and admitted six prison priors (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) in exchange for a sentence of 15 years in prison. The sentence consisted of a doubled low term (four years) for one robbery, three consecutive one-third midterms, doubled, for the remaining robberies, and five years for a prior serious felony. A misdemeanor count of brandishing a firearm, a count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and two counts of a felon in possession of a firearm, plus enhancements were dismissed. After obtaining a certificate of probable cause, defendant appealed.
Court have examined the record and found no other issues. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.) The judgment is affirmed.

Mark Anthony Diaz appeals from a judgment of conviction of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a))[1] (count one) and child endangerment ( 273a, subd. (b)) (count four). ( 1237, subd. (a).) The jury also found true two special allegations alleged as to count one. ( 1203.066, subds. (a)(1) and (a)(8).) The crimes occurred while defendant was babysitting L., the minor victim, in her home.
On appeal, defendant raises claims of insufficiency of the evidence as to count one, instructional error as to the allegation under section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(1), error in denying a motion for mistrial, and ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, defendant asks court to review a sealed record to determine whether it contains any relevant, non-privileged information that should have been turned over to the defense.

Diane B. appeals from an order entered after a post-permanency planning hearing that was held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3. She contends that the juvenile court violated her due process rights by denying her request to participate in the hearing telephonically and by excluding relevant evidence. Court find no error and affirm.

On February 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued an order in this case granting certiorari, vacating the judgment, and remanding to this court for further consideration in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham).
Cunningham applies Blakely to California sentencing law, and only confirms the validity of our initial holding. Because we deem it unnecessary to modify our prior opinion, Court reiterate that opinion in its entirety. (City of Long Beach v. Bozek (1983) 33 Cal.3d 727, 728.)[1]
Let the remittitur issue forthwith and the case is hereby sent back for resentencing.

Appellant appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondent Maureen Kallins denying recovery of attorney fees he had advanced. Chong contends Kallins breached both her fiduciary duties to him and her contract with him. Court reverse.