CA Unpub Decisions

In Sutter County case No. CRF05941, following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant Angela Marie Campuzano guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and sustained an allegation that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for possession of ephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11383, subd. (c)(1), 11370.2, subd. (c)(2)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a middle term of two years with a consecutive three year enhancement pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c)(2), imposed a $1,000 Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine, and stayed a $1000 parole revocation fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. Defendant was awarded 29 actual days and 14 conduct days for a total of 43 days conduct credit. We 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 The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant, mother of Kayla C.(the minor), appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant contends the court violated her due process rights when it failed to hold a hearing to determine whether it should appoint a guardian ad litem for her. Court disagree and affirm the orders.

This writ proceeding arises due to the Sutter County juvenile courts failure to comply with California Rules of Court applicable to the jurisdictional hearing in this dependency proceeding.
Andrew K. (father) and Brittany G. (mother), the parents of N.K. (the minor), seek an extraordinary writ to vacate juvenile court orders denying reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452; further rule references are to the California Rules of Court, and further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.)
They contend the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders must be reversed because, at the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court failed to comply with the requirement to advise them of their rights and make certain findings before accepting their submission of the matter on the issue of jurisdiction.
Court agree the court erred. However, as court explain, the court already had advised father and mother of their rights and the potential consequences of the dependency proceeding, they were represented by counsel at the jurisdictional hearing, and the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that their submission of the matter on the issue of jurisdiction was both voluntary and intelligent. Accordingly, Court deny the petition.

Petitioner, the father of the minor, seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Petitioner contends the juvenile court erred by finding he was provided reasonable reunification services. Court agree. Accordingly, Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate its orders and provide petitioner with additional reunification services.

jury convicted Debra Lee Horton (Debra) of abuse of a dependent adult (Pen. Code,former 368, subd. (b)(1)), arising out of the death of her 60 year old mother, Concepcion Horton (Concepcion), who spent the last several years of her life bedridden and being cared for by Debra and Debra's father, John Kenneth Horton, Sr. (Kenneth, Sr.), in the family home. The jury also found that Debra proximately caused her mother's death. (Former 368, subd. (a)(3).)
The trial court granted probation to Debra, suspending an eight year prison term, and imposed probation conditions, including the service of a 365day sentence in county jail.
In her appeal, Debra argues that insufficient evidence supports her conviction, and that the trial court erred in responding to a jury note without first notifying counsel and by giving an answer that misstated the law.
As Court explain, Court conclude (1) that the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) that the trial court erred by responding to the jury note without informing counsel, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Court reverse.

jury convicted Nuh Nhuoc Loi of crimes involving three different victims. Loi was convicted of forcible oral copulation on victim Dianne C. (Pen. Code, 288a, subd. (c), count 3), attempted forcible oral copulation on victim Audrey C. ( 288a, subd. (c)/664, count 2), and five separate offenses on victim Hitomi N. The jury also found true various special allegations, including personal use of a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and kidnapping with substantial increased risk to the victim ( 667.61, subds. (a), (c) & (d)) as to count 4, commission of crimes against more than one victim ( 667.61, subds. (b), (c) & (e)) as to counts 3 and 4, and a venue allegation ( 784.7, subd. (a)). Loi was sentenced to a 40 year to life indeterminate term and a four year consecutive determinate term, with all remaining sentences either stayed or imposed as concurrent terms.
On appeal, Loi asserts the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction on count two, and raises several legal challenges to his conviction on count three.
The judgment is affirmed.

The trial court amend the abstract of judgment to strike the conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance. The judgment is affirmed as so modified. The trial court shall advise the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of the amendment.

Tyrone Janonte Penn appeals a judgment following his jury conviction of second degree robbery. He contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison instead of granting probation. Court conclude the court balanced the proper criteria and did not abuse its discretion by denying Penn probation.The judgment is affirmed.

Andrew Denzien appeals an injunction issued under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 prohibiting him from harassing Brian Polte and Polte's minor child, Nicholas. He contends Polte provided insufficient evidence Denzien made threats that would support the issuance of an injunction. The order issuing the injunction is modified by striking Nicholas from "Other Protected Persons" and, as so modified, affirmed.

Following the denial of his suppression motion (Pen. Code, 1538.5), defendant Leon Steven Gates pled guilty to unlawful possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378 (count 1)), unlawful transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a) (count 2)), and misdemeanor unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364, subd. (a) (count 3)). Defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years on count 1, a concurrent two-year term on count 2, and a concurrent 180 days in county jail for count 3. He appeals, unsuccessfully challenging the denial of his motion to suppress. The judgment is affirmed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of child endangerment (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a)). In return, the remaining two counts of child endangerment were dismissed, and defendant was placed on probation on various terms and conditions. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the probation condition requiring her to keep the probation officer informed of whether she owns any pets is invalid; and (2) the probation condition requiring her to submit to and cooperate in field interrogations is overly broad and infringes upon her constitutional rights. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Robert A. Smith entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a))and admitted a prior no probation drug conviction ( 11370, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to the two year middle term to be served concurrently with the sentence on two unrelated convictions, in superior court case No. SCD195612 and case No. SCD192500. Smith did not request a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304, former rule 30(b).) The judgment is affirmed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine, (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) (count 1) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)) (count 3). In return, the remaining allegations for possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) (count 2) and driving without a valid drivers license (Veh. Code, 12500, subd. (a)) (count 4) were dismissed. The People also dismissed a pending case which charged defendant with a separate violation of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). Defendant was granted three years of formal probation on various terms and conditions, including that she serve 270 days in county jail.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the probation condition requiring her to submit to and cooperate in field interrogations infringes upon her Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination and is unconstitutionally overbroad; (2) there was no evidence to support the trial courts finding that she had the ability to pay the cost of probation supervision; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering the cost of probation supervision as a condition of probation.
The judgment is modified to delete probation condition No. 10, to the extent it requires the payment of the fees and costs as a probation condition. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Mother appeals from the juvenile courts orders terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 and denying her petition under section 388. Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court findings in denying her petition. Mother also argues that the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to provide adequate notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). Court reject mothers first argument because the record supports the juvenile courts finding that no change in circumstances warranted the reopening of her reunification plan. Mothers second argument has merit, however, because the record does not contain adequate documentation that DPSS complied with the notice requirements of ICWA. Court reverse the courts decision with directions to effect compliance with ICWA.