CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant (father) appeals the denial of his motion to disqualify the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Under In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, court dismiss the appeals.

Defendant Delaney appeals from an order revoking probation and sentencing him to five years state prison for sale/transportation/offer to sell a controlled substance. (Health and Saf. Code, S 11352, subd. (a).)
Court have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's 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.

Defendant appeals an order recommitting him to the California Department of Mental Health (CDMH) for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (Pen. Code, S 2962) following his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon (S 245). Court conclude that the trial court provided Jackson an adequate hearing to consider his request to replace his appointed counsel and it did not err by denying his motion. Court affirm.

Defendant,appeals after a jury convicted him of methamphetamine possession in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). Defendant admitted he had sustained one prior serious or violent felony conviction or juvenile adjudication as alleged pursuant to Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12. On August 31, 2006, defendant was sentenced to the low term of 16 months which was doubled pursuant to sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12. Defendant was awarded 153 days of custody credits consisting of 102 days of actual days plus 51 days of conduct credits. Defendant filed a notice of appeal.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defense counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. No argument now exists favorable to defendant on appeal. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant, the father of the minor, appeals in pro per from the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights. (Welf. and Inst. Code, SS 366.26, 395.) Appellant's brief sets forth facts concerning his rehabilitation from substance abuse and his successful reunification with the minor's sister. However, although appellant requests "the chance" to have the minor "in [his] life and in [his] home," he asserts no legal error for our review. Accordingly, court affirm.

At trial, undisputed evidence established that Suzette Chalene Frizzell repeatedly stabbed Stuart Phillips in the back after they engaged in sexual intercourse on a bed they shared in a canyon where they lived. Frizzell testified in support of her defense that she did not have an intimate relationship with Phillips, and he was raping her when she stabbed him. The court admitted evidence of three prior acts of domestic violence that Frizzell allegedly committed. The court also admitted evidence that Frizzell had previously committed an assault with a machete.
Frizzell appeals, contending (1) there was insufficient evidence of cohabitation to support either her conviction of corporal injury to a cohabitant or the true finding that she inflicted great bodily injury upon Phillips under circumstances involving domestic violence; (2) the court deprived her of her due process right to a fair trial by erroneously admitting evidence under Evidence Code sections 1109 and 352 that she had committed three prior acts of domestic violence; (3) the court also deprived her of her due process right to a fair trial by erroneously admitting evidence under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) that she had assaulted a neighbor and a prior roommate with a machete; and (4) the court committed reversible error by instructing the jury on prior acts evidence under CALJIC No. 2.50.02, which permitted the jury to convict Frizzell with less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Appellant appeals from an order denying its petition for a writ of administrative mandate challenging a decision of respondent County of San Diego (County). UUI submitted a bid to Sundt Construction, Inc. (Sundt) for work relating to underground utilities for a County nursing facility project, and thereafter refused to sign Sundt's subcontract that UUI claimed substantially differed from agreed-upon bid conditions. After Sundt requested that UUI be substituted out of the project, UUI sought an administrative hearing resulting in County's decision to grant Sundt's request for substitution, and thereafter unsuccessfully petitioned for a writ of mandate. On appeal, UUI contends the County hearing officer ignored facts and misapplied the applicable provisions of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (Pub. Contract Code, S 4100 et seq.), the hearing officer's decision was not supported by his findings, and his findings were not supported by the evidence. UUI argues the superior court made similar legal and factual errors in denying his writ petition.
Court conclude the hearing officer's finding as to UUI's refusal to execute a " written contract . . . based upon the general terms, conditions, plans, and specifications for the project involved or the terms of that subcontractor's written bid . . . " (S 4107, subd. (a)(1)), justifying Sundt's request for substitution, is supported by substantial evidence. Court further conclude the hearing officer's interpretation of UUI's bid condition No. 3 is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm the order.

Teodoro H. appeals judgments of the juvenile court terminating parental rights to his children, Armando E. and Antonio H. He contends insufficient evidence supports the court's findings the children were likely to be adopted, and the beneficial parent child relationship and sibling relationship exceptions to termination of parental rights did not apply. Court affirm the judgments.

Barbara B. appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor daughter, Gabriella B., under the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.
She contends the court erred by failing to appoint a guardian ad litem (guardian) for her at the section 366.26 hearing resulting in the denial of her due process rights. Barbara also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's findings that the beneficial parent child relationship exception (S 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) did not apply to preclude terminating parental rights. Court affirm the judgment.

Daniel R., Jr. appeals the judgment freeing his two sons, Daniel R., III and Joshua R., from his custody and control under Family Code section 7822. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting his custody of a child or his status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) Court therefore deny his requests to review the record for error and to address his Anders issue. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)

The District Attorney of San Bernardino County in case number FVI-022009 filed a felony complaint which alleged in count one a violation of Penal Code, section 288, subdivision (a), lewd act upon a child, as well as a substantial sexual conduct special allegations filed pursuant to section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(8).
Thereafter, pursuant to section 859a, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to count one and in accordance with the negotiated disposition the special allegation was stricken on motion of the District Attorney. (S 1385.) As part of his plea bargain, defendant waived his right to appeal. On April 14, 2006, defendant was committed to state prison for eight years and awarded the appropriate custody credits. Defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause was granted by the trial court.

Ashley H. (the child or Ashley) and her two older brothers, C.H. and W.H., became dependent children of the juvenile court in 2002, when their parents, M.H. (father) and D.H. (mother), were arrested for manufacturing methamphetamine. Eventually, the trial court denied a petition by the two boys under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to intervene in the child's selection and implementation hearing as interested siblings. The juvenile court denied the boys' section 388 petition and terminated mother and father's parental rights. Appeals have been filed by mother, father, and the two boys. Court affirm.