CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals the judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff and an order granting her attorney fees as the prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717. Villasenor contends the court erred by denying her petition to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds it exceeds the arbitrator's powers and was obtained by fraud, and the attorney fees award lacks evidentiary support. Court affirm the judgment and the order and remand the matter to the trial court for its determination of the amount of Hernandez's attorney fees on appeal.

In these consolidated appeals, O.A. challenges the denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petition and the termination of his parental rights to Robert S. O. contends the juvenile court erred by ruling that his submission to paternity testing precluded him from later becoming Robert's presumed father via a paternity declaration. He also contends the court erred by terminating parental rights without offering him the opportunity to reunify with Robert. Court affirm.

Terri B. appeals from an order of the juvenile court authorizing administration of psychotropic drugs to her minor daughter, Alyssa O., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 369.5. Terri contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by authorizing the administration of psychotropic medications for Alyssa because the court lacked adequate information to make an informed decision. Court affirm the order.

K.A. appeals the findings and orders entered at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 360, subdivision (d) and 361, subdivision (c). Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
K.A.'s counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.

Gabriel R., the father of Sabrina M., appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Gabriel contends the juvenile court erred by finding that Sabrina was likely to be adopted because the adoption assessment report did not include an adequate evaluation of Sabrina's developmental status.
Under these circumstances, court find substantial evidence supported the court's finding that Sabrina was likely to be adopted.
Judgment affirmed.

Appellant was convicted after jury trial of one count of second degree murder (count 1), two counts of attempted murder (counts 2 and 3), two counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling (counts 4 and 5), one count of shooting a firearm from a vehicle at a person (count 6) and two counts of assault with a firearm (counts 7 and 8). The jury found true special allegations attached to all the counts that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a street gang. The jury found true special allegations attached to counts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 that a principal discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury in the commission of the offense. The jury found true special allegations attached to counts 7 and 8 that appellant personally used a firearm during the commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, SS 187, subd. (a); 664; 246; 12034, subd. (c); 245, subd. (a)(2); 186.22, subd. (b)(1); 12022.53, subds. (d) and (e); and 12022.5, subd. (a).)
Appellant was sentenced on count 1 to a term of 15 years to life, plus 25 years to life pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(1), plus 10 years pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). On counts 2 and 3, he was sentenced to consecutive terms of life, plus 25 years to life pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(1). He was sentenced to a concurrent term of 15 years to life on count 4. On count 5, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of 15 years to life plus 25 years to life pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(1). Sentence was stayed on counts 6, 7 and 8 pursuant to section 654.
Appellant argues that the convictions must be reversed because there was insufficient corroboration of an accomplice's testimony. He also raises two claims of sentencing error. First, he argues that the terms imposed for the section 186.22 gang enhancements attached to counts 1, 4 and 5 must be stricken because the jury did not find that appellant personally used a weapon in the commission of these offenses. Second, he contends that the gang enhancement attached to count 1 must be stricken because second degree murder is a violent felony that is punishable by life imprisonment. The Attorney General concedes the second sentencing claim and we accept this concession as properly made. The rest of appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Therefore, court modify the judgment to strike the section 186.22 gang enhancement that is attached to count 1 and, as modified, affirm the judgment.

Having reviewed the letter brief and the record herein, court conclude appellant raises no arguable issue regarding the court's decision. Having found no claim of trial court error in appellant's letter as to matters within the scope of this appeal, court conclude appellant has abandoned the appeal from the order terminating her parental rights and dismiss this appeal.

Jay H. appeals from the order finding the allegations of a subsequent petition true, declaring his daughter Raven H., a dependent child due to his failure to protect her, and continuing her under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 300, subd. (b).) Court reject his contention that insufficient evidence supports the jurisdictional finding, and court affirm the order.

Defendant was convicted after jury trial of attempted murder (Pen. Code, SS 664, 187), shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (S 246), and assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (S 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found true allegations that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the attempted murder (S 12022.53, subd. (c)), and that all the offenses were committed for the benefit of, or in association with, a criminal street gang (S 186.22, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to the indeterminate term of 15 years to life consecutive to the determinate term of eight years. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court prejudicially erred in (1) instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 1.22; (2) instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.50; (3) failing to instruct the jury on negligent discharging of a firearm (S 246.3) as a lesser included offense of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle; (4) refusing his co defendant's request to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony; and (5) allowing the gang expert to testify regarding the motive for the offenses. Defendant also contends that there was sentencing error. Court disagree with all but the last contention, and court remand the matter for resentencing on count 3, the assault count.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from an order denying reconsideration of an earlier order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. They seek review of both their motion to reconsider and the underlying demurrer. Because the appeal is taken from a nonappealable order, court must dismiss it.

The juvenile court took jurisdiction over appellant John R.'s children, three year old Delilah and one year old I., removed them from his custody and placed them in foster care. John challenges the court's decision to take jurisdiction over the children, and he contests the adequacy of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) notices sent by the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services (the Department). Court conclude that the juvenile court's jurisdictional decision is supported by substantial evidence and that remand for corrected notices to be sent to the correct tribal agents at the correct addresses is not necessary because the Department did not know the identities of the tribes and properly notified the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Court affirm the juvenile court's orders.

Defendant was tried with codefendant Kenneth Webb on two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, S 211). The jury convicted defendant on both counts, but was unable to reach a verdict as to Webb. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of four years, and defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. His sole contention is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed judgment of acquittal because one of the victims had made a tainted in court identification. Court conclude that this contention is without merit, and court affirm.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to felony assault and street terrorism. As part of the sentence, the trial court imposed victim restitution of $295,391.71. (Pen. Code, S 1202.4, subd. (f).) On appeal, defendant contends that no substantial evidence supports a victim restitution amount exceeding $244, 521.87. The People concede the point, and court agree that the concession is appropriate. Court therefore modify the judgment and affirm.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the orders of the juvenile court removing her children, and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan of adoption. Court deny the petition.