CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant guilty of making terrorist threats (Pen. Code, S 422) (count 1) while personally using a firearm (SS 12022.5, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)), being a felon in possession of a firearm (S 12021, subd. (c)) (count 2), and being under the influence of drugs while in possession of a loaded, operable firearm (Health and Saf. Code, S 11550, subd. (e)) (count 3). As a result, defendant was sentenced to a total term of six years eight months in state prison. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for making criminal threats. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health and Saf. Code, S 11378). Defendant has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his guilty plea was coerced. This court has ordered the habeas petition to be considered together with this appeal for the sole purpose of determining whether an order to show cause should issue.
Counsel on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, finding no arguable issues on appeal and requesting this court to conduct an independent examination of the record.The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, S 487, subd. (a)) in exchange for a grant of probation. He later violated his probation. The trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to the upper term of three years. Defendant's sole claim on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term. Court affirm.

Defendant, father, appeals from the juvenile court's decisions denying his petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, and terminating his parental rights to his two children at a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26. As described below, court conclude that the juvenile court did not err when it denied the petition for modification based on the best interest of the children and found that the beneficial parental relationship exception to the termination of parental rights did not apply.

Father, the father of child, who presently is one year old, appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating his parental rights. The child's mother is not a party to this appeal.
Court have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of numerous crimes arising from sexual acts with young boys and sentenced to prison for an indeterminate term of 75 years to life. He appeals, claiming the trial court erred in failing to give the jury an attempt instruction for the count involving victim D.P., the prosecutor committed misconduct when she asked defendant if he thought the prosecution witnesses were lying, and the trial court erred in giving instruction on consciousness of guilt. Court affirm.

Returning home one afternoon, a couple found their home "a complete disaster" with drawers pulled open and everything "dumped on the floor" and saw Eric Shannon Frazier and someone else fleeing through a window. A jury found Frazier guilty as charged of first degree residential burglary (SS 459, 460, subd. (a)), grand theft of personal property (S 487, subd. (a)), grand theft of a firearm (S 487, subd. (d)(2)), felon in possession of a firearm (S 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and felon in possession of ammunition (S 12316, subd. (b)(1)). The court imposed an aggregate 4 year sentence (the 4 year middle term on the first degree residential burglary and the 2 year middle terms stayed on each of the other crimes).
On appeal, Frazier raises two challenges to the judgment of conviction of grand theft of personal property (insufficiency of the evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel) and one challenge to the judgment of conviction of first degree residential burglary (worktime credit error). Court affirm the judgment.

On November 22, 2004, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information in the superior court charging appellant Richard John Henderson and codefendant Shana Johnston as follows:
murder (Pen. Code, S 187, subd. (a)) of Nisar Ahmad Khan with personal discharge of a firearm resulting in death or great bodily injury (S 12022.53, subd. (d));, murder (Pen. Code, S 187, subd. (a)) of Sucha Singh with personal discharge of a firearm resulting in death or great bodily injury (S 12022.53, subd. (d));conspiracy to commit a robbery (Pen. Code,S 182, subd. (a)(1)) with four overt acts (Johnston only); and
accessory after the fact (Pen. Code, S 32) (Johnston only).As to counts I and II, the district attorney alleged as to appellant that the commission of the substantive offenses constituted a special circumstance (Pen. Code,S 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant was found guilty of displaying a falsified registration tag on his vehicle with intent to defraud in violation of Vehicle Code section 4463, subdivision (a). Although the tag was admittedly a fake, the date depicted on the tag was not current. Thus, appellant contends he could not have fooled or defrauded anyone. He appeals on the grounds that (1) there was no substantial evidence that he displayed the registration tag with intent to defraud, (2) the trial court prejudicially admitted hearsay evidence regarding the date of the vehicle's last registration, and (3) the trial court should have granted his Wheeler Batson motion. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals after judgment on his no contest plea to drug possession charges, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Court affirm.

Appellant went to work for Terminix International (respondent) in August 2002. He signed a written employment contract which mandated that any disputes between them would be subject to binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Respondent terminated appellant's employment in October 2002. Appellant filed a wrongful termination suit against respondent. The court granted respondent's motion to compel arbitration.

Appellant contends (1) the juvenile court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq.; (2) the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition failed to state a cause of action; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jurisdictional findings; and (4) the dispositional order denying reunification services and limiting visitation constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Appellant Joe R. appeals the juvenile court's denial of his request for placement of his son, Baby Boy T., in his home pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2. Alternatively, he contends the reunification services ordered provided were inadequate. Court reverse and remand.

Lisa K. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26) to her three children. She contends reversal is required because respondent Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) failed to provide sufficient notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. S 1901 et seq.). On review, Court agree and reverse.