CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant guilty of resisting an officer and committing a battery onan officer. He raises three meritless contentions.
First,defendant complains his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to evidence of his violent character. Court agree that evidenceof the officer's purportedly violent conduct before defendant resisted arrest did not open the door for the prosecution to offer evidence of defendant's violent character. But the admission of that evidence was harmless. Counsel's failure to object did not prejudice defendant.
Second,defendant claims the court wrongly found citizen complaints against the officerwere unresponsive to his Pitchess motion. Court find no abuse of discretion.
Finally, in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, defendant contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance by advising him to testify about the details of a prior conviction. He contends his testimony allowed the court to find the prior conviction constituted a serious felony strike. But the court could have made that determination from the record of conviction, without defendant's testimony. Thus, this ineffective assistance claim fails as well. Accordingly, court affirm the judgment and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

A jury convicted Defendant of aggravated assault (Pen.Code,S 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found true the allegation he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, S 12022.7). Defendant contends (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct by cross-examining him about the veracity of other witnesses, and (2) a probation condition governing his association withother persons should be stricken as a clerical error. Court agree the probationcondition must be stricken. In all other respects court affirm the judgment.

Mother of minoir, born in February 2005 (the child), appeals from ajudgment terminating her parental rightsand the parental rights of Jack H. and Patrick W., two men identified as the child's alleged fathers. Mother's sole claim is that the juvenile court and Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to adequately inquire as to whether Patrick W. had Indian heritage. Since this claim lacks merit, court affirm the judgment.

Defendant moves to recall the remittitur. Several years after this appeal became final, the California Supreme Court clarified an aspect of the law of second degree felony murder that was central to defendant's case. As a result of that clarification, defendant stands convicted and sentenced under an invalid theory of felony murder. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, we grant the motion. Court recall the remittitur, order that a new remittitur issue that reverses the second degree felony murder conviction and affirms defendant's remaining convictions, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Defendant was convicted of robbery after he came up behind an elderly man, put him in a headlock, and stole his wallet. In light of defendant's 30 year criminal history, which included crimes of violence, the trial court refused to strike defendant's past serious felony convictions under the "Three Strikes" law, and defendant received a sentence of 35 years to life. He contends that the sentence violates the federal and state constitutions because it is cruel and unusual and constitutes double jeopardy. Court affirm.

Following a plea of nocontest, defendant challenges his conviction on one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale with a prior conviction and a prior prison term, and one count of possession of drugs in jail. Defendant has directly appealed his conviction and has also petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Court find his challenges to be without merit and therefore affirm the conviction and deny the petition.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his police brutality lawsuit for failure to prosecute. Court affirm.

Plaintiff appeals from two orders granting motions to quash service of summons on Mercy Services Corporation and Francis of Assisi Community, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mercy Corporation that owned and managed property providing housing to low-income tenants. Court affirm.

Appellant and Respondent executed an agreement in October 2001, settling two actions brought by Adena arisingfrom the parties' 1987 maritalsettlement. After this court affirmed the enforceability of the 2001 settlement agreement in an earlier appeal, Peter moved successfully in the trial court for an award of attorney fees that he incurred in litigating that issue to resolution. Adena contends that the award is unauthorized by Civil Code section 1717 or by the parties' agreement. Court disagree, and uphold the award.

A modification decision.

Appellant minor, born in August 1989, appeals a juvenile court order committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA). Appellant contends there was no substantial evidence that less restrictive alternatives would have been ineffective or inappropriate, or that he would probably benefit from a CYAcommitment. Appellant also contends, and the People concede, the court erred incalculating his maximum term of confinement.

Appellant, as director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles(DMV), appeals a judgment granting the petition of Lauren Elizabeth Barry (Barry)for a writ of administrative mandamus directing the DMV to vacate the suspension of her driver's license. The DMVcontends Barry failed to show sufficient medical evidence she could operate a vehicle safely.

The father of minor, appeals from an order of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court finding that minor was adoptable and terminating appellant's parental rights. (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26.) Appellant contends that the juvenile court's finding that minor was adoptable was not supported by substantial evidence. MInor also contends that the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C.S 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). Court affirm the order.

A judgment dissolving the marriage between the parties to this appeal, based on a settlement negotiated by their lawyers, was entered on August 19, 2004. On January 13, 2005, appellant MulkChandna, formerly the husband, filed a motion to set aside the judgment. The same judge, retired judge Eli Chernow, who presided over the settlement and the entry of judgment, denied the motion. Court affirm.