CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Jesus Magana appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction for selling a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). The jury found true the allegation that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). Appellant admitted having suffered a prior strike conviction, a prior serious felony conviction, and five prison priors. After granting appellants Romero motion and striking his prior conviction under Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), the trial court sentenced appellant to 10 years in state prison. The sentence consisted of the low term of three years for the substantive offense, two consecutive years for the gang enhancement, and five consecutive years for a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). The court struck five prison priors under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

Minor appeals from the order of May 19, 2006, denying his motion to have his DNA sample destroyed or the record of it sealed, because his juvenile adjudication had been reduced to a misdemeanor. As appellant has failed to provide an adequate record for review, Court affirm the order. Appellant also purports to appeal from the judgment entered December 13, 2004. Because appellant failed to timely file a notice of appeal from the judgment, that part of his appeal be dismissed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated plea of guilty to second degree murder. Court appointed counsel to represent him and counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441442.) Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

Tommy Lee Rush (husband) appeals from a judgment on reserved issues in the dissolution of his marriage to Cristal Rush (wife). Husband contends the trial court set an unreasonable amount of child support in an interim order filed on February 4, 2005, that the court failed to enforce the interim order to the extent it required wife to immediately list the family residence for sale, and that the court made an unequal division of community property. Court affirm.

This case is one of the many unfortunate cases that arise out of a volatile divorce between two parents who cannot set aside their conflicts for the sake of their child. As a result, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) was forced to intervene, and the juvenile court was put in the precarious position of having to decide where the child should be placed. After considering a host of evidence regarding the child and the parents emotional states, the juvenile court determined that the child should be placed with her father.
Peggy M. (mother) appeals from that order. She contends that: (1) substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts order removing the child, Robin M. (Robin), from her custody; (2) the juvenile courts order placing Robin with Scott M. (father) was erroneous; and (3) the juvenile court erred in admitting into evidence tape recordings of statements made by mother.
Court affirm.

David W. appeals an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court and ordering him suitably placed based on the finding he committed a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) Court reject David W.s claim the juvenile court erroneously excluded evidence favorable to the defense and affirm.

Defendant Jose Mendez appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after his motion to suppress tangible evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5) was denied and he pled no contest to unlawful possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)). He was granted probation and drug treatment under Proposition 36. He appeals, contending that his suppression motion should have been granted. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

An alleged father appeals to challenge the juvenile courts denial of his motion requesting all orders made at the detention, jurisdiction, disposition and review hearings be declared void for lack of jurisdiction. He also claims the court erred in denying his petition for modification without a hearing. In both his motion and petition the alleged father asserted he had not received notice of the proceedings because the department failed to exercise due diligence in attempting to locate him, and in addition, failed to use the Hague Service Convention to serve him despite knowledge he had been deported to Belize. Court affirm.

Micah T. (the minor), a ward of the juvenile court, appealed from the orders of wardship. On appeal, this court modified the disposition order and ordered a conditional reversal of the wardship subject to a finding of prejudice. On remand, the juvenile court held a hearing, and on May 16, 2006, it ordered reinstated its original orders of wardship and disposition. The minor has appealed from the order of May 16, 2006.
Court appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that the minors attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The order of May 16, 2006, is affirmed.

J.G. appeals from the orders of the juvenile court declaring wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) after finding that the minor had made two felony criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422), he had committed a misdemeanor, the exhibiting of a handgun ( 417, subd. (a)(2)), and he had possessed a concealable firearm ( 12101, subd. (a)(1)), with findings the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)). The juvenile court ordered short-term placement in the camp-community program.
Court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that the minors attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The orders of wardship are affirmed.

Brian Zink, doing business as Media Broadcast Services (appellant), appeals an order granting summary judgment against him and in favor of Judicial Watch, Inc. (respondent) on the grounds that appellants breach of contract claim is time barred under the four-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 337 (section 337). Court affirm.

L.J. and her minor son, L.B., appeal from orders of the juvenile court (1) refusing to continue the selection and implementation hearing until a decision by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on mothers application to participate with her son in the Community Prisoner Mother Program and (2) terminating mothers parental rights. For the reasons discussed below Court hold the juvenile court committed prejudicial error when it used, and allowed the child welfare agency to use, threats and misinformation to bully L.B.s caretaker relative into agreeing to adopt L.B. instead of hearing and considering her reasons for preferring a legal guardianship. Court reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.

A client signed a retainer agreement giving its lawyer both a flat fee and a contingency fee and a lien for the payment of the contingency fee against any property or money obtained in the collection action contemplated by the retainer agreement. The client prevailed in the collection action but filed a satisfaction of judgment before any money was recovered pursuant to the judgment, and the lawyer then sued both his former client and the defendants in the collection action. The lawyer obtained a default judgment against the former client (made worthless by the clients bankruptcy) but lost his claims against the other defendants. The lawyer appeals. Court affirm.

James Cooper appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of attempted premeditated murder, robbery, and burglary, with further findings that he used a knife and inflicted great bodily injury upon his victim. In a bifurcated bench trial, defendant was found to have sustained three prior convictions under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b),[1]and two prior convictions under sections 667, subdivisions (b)(i), 1170.12 (the Three Strikes law). Defendant contends that the trial court erred in calculating his sentence for attempted murder and in failing to stay sentence for robbery and burglary under section 654. We agree with the former contention and agree in part with the latter. Court accordingly modify the judgment to strike a portion of the sentence for attempted murder and stay imposition of sentence for burglary, and affirm.