CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26) to his son X.C. Since his birth in 2005, X.C. has lived with his paternal grandparents, who were identified in the trial court as the child's prospective adoptive parents. Appellant contends for the first time that the trial court should have considered the ramifications of an intrafamilial adoption and inquired about the grandparents' wishes regarding adoption versus legal guardianship for X.C. On review, court affirm.

Petitioner, seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying his supplemental motion for release of physical evidence and postconviction discovery and issue a new order granting his motion. Sturm argues the trial court erroneously denied his motion because the discovery he requested falls within one or more of the categories of discoverable evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9 as delineated by the California Supreme Court in In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682 (Steele). As court explain below, because the California Supreme Court in People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218 (Sturm), reversed Sturm's death sentence and subsequently denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus, court deny his petition for writ of mandate without prejudice as moot.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal with this court following the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the petition, Penafiel requested the trial court to vacate the judgment or, in the alternative, to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. Court appointed counsel to represent Penafiel on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that court review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel suggested court consider the issue whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Penafiel's petition for writ of error coram nobis.
Penafiel was given 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf. On January 5, 2007, he filed a supplemental brief in support of his appeal.
Court examined the entire record, counsel's Wende brief, and Penafiel's supplemental brief, and find no arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Court therefore affirm.

Defendant was sentenced to 45 years to life in state prison. He was convicted of killing Rene Porras, Rosalinda Gonzales, and the couple's unborn child when he drove at excessive speed through a stop sign under the influence of alcohol on December 4, 2003. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of mental state, the admissibility of his driving history of Vehicle Code violations and accidents, and a jury instruction which created "an impermissible conclusive presumption in violation of [defendant's] right to due process of law." Court affirmed.

Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of committing 11 sex offenses against his stepdaughter and sentenced to a state prison term of 44 years with a consecutive 15-years-to-life term. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior lewd conduct, that his statements to the police should not have been admitted at trial, and that he was denied notice of the conduct underlying two of the counts. He further contends that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury by giving conflicting instructions on the burden of proof, by failing to give a unanimity instruction as to certain counts, and by instructing the jury on a probability standard for evaluating prosecution testimony. Appellant also contends that the trial court committed sentencing error. Court affirm.

After his suppression motion was denied, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, S 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, S 12316, subd. (b)), and he admitted that he had served prison terms for two prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, S 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to an agreed term of two years in prison. On appeal, defendant claims that his suppression motion should have been granted because the parole search that led to the charges included a search of the closet of a bedroom in which he did not reside. Court conclude that the superior court did not err in concluding that the searching officers reasonably believed that defendant had access to the closet, and therefore the search of the closet did not exceed the proper scope of a parole search. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant was charged with being an accessory by harboring, concealing, and aiding her son Carlos Harris, who was a principal in two felonies. (Pen. Code, S 32.) After the district attorney moved to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, S 17, subd. (b)), defendant pleaded guilty to the charged offense. The trial court ordered her to perform 50 hours of community service, to pay $130 in fines and security fees, and gave her credit for one day served in county jail. Defendant was not placed on probation. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Court have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mother and father appeal from orders terminating their parental rights as to their daughters Iesha, Kaley, Breana, and T. Mother contends (1) the trial court erred when it denied her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to modify the pending order, and (2) the court erred when it declined to find applicable the exception to termination that is set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). Father contends the trial court erred because it continued to conduct hearings in his case even after it had concluded he needed a guardian ad litem. Court conclude the trial court did not commit any prejudicial errors and affirm the orders terminating mother's and father's parental rights.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant seeking (1) to enforce an option to renew a lease which ABM failed to timely exercise and (2) to compel compliance with an option to purchase the property. Following a court trial, the trial court rejected ABM's bid to enforce the options, finding that ABM was not entitled to relief from its failure to timely notify Bellante of its intent to renew. Court conclude that the trial court was correct, and court affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after an order sustaining a demurrer. Defendants and appellants Terence and Margaret Bezdek (Bezdeks) claim the trial court erred by sustaining cross defendant and respondent Norma Fogelberg's demurrer to their cross complaint after finding no viable cause of action for equitable indemnity. Court agree, and reverse.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant, admitted an allegation in a 602 petition that he possessed a concealable firearm. (Pen. Code, S 12101, subd. (a)(1).) A street terrorism enhancement allegation under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) was dismissed. Consistent with the negotiated disposition, appellant was redeclared a ward of the court and committed to the Log Cabin Ranch School. The maximum confinement time was set at four years and eight months.
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. A motion to suppress the firearm found by police in appellant's pants pocket was properly denied. Appellant was on probation at the time of the search with a search condition, which condition the police were aware of prior to the search. Following denial of the motion to suppress, appellant's admission of possessing a concealable firearm was validly entered. There was no error in the dispositional commitment.
Judgment affirmed.

Jose Mariano Castillo (Castillo), former attorney for defendant Robert Miranda (Miranda), appeals in propria persona an order directing Castillo to pay sanctions in the amount of $10,922.50 to plaintiff and respondent Garvey School District (the District) for filing a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion on Miranda's behalf. (Code Civ. Proc., S 425.16.)
The essential issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning Castillo.
the record establishes that irrespective of the unauthorized moving declaration, the moving papers met their burden. Therefore, the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous. Accordingly, the order sanctioning Castillo for filing the anti-SLAPP motion reversed with directions.

A modification decision.

Minor was born in January 2006, when Mother was 40 years old, at a medical center in San Bernardino. Mother had prenatal medical care.
At the time of Minor's birth, he and Mother tested positive for opiates. However, Mother denied to medical center staff that she used alcohol or drugs. She admitted smoking one pack of cigarettes a day, even though her doctor had counseled her against the use of tobacco during her pregnancy.
In view of the safeguards already incorporated into section 388, no "additional or substitute procedural safeguards" are required to insure against the risk of an erroneous deprivation, and the burden on the juvenile courts if every section 388 petition had to be determined at an evidentiary hearing would be considerable. Requiring a preliminary prima facie showing of some evidence that the proposed change would be in the child's best interests is a reasonable condition on the right to a hearing under these circumstances.
The order and judgment appealed from are affirmed.