CA Unpub Decisions

Andrew D., Sr., appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code,S 366.26) to his namesake son. Appellant joins in the argument advanced by the child's mother in her appeal, In re Curtice B. et al. (case No. F050905). The mother challenged the trial court"s rejection of her argument that termination would be detrimental to Andrew and his half brother based on their relationship with her. Having reviewed the appellate record, we concluded the trial court could properly find there was no compelling reason to find termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the children. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.)

Because the father in his appeal raised no independent claim of error, we conclude the court properly terminated his parental rights.

Defendant contends insufficient evidence supports an order directing him to pay restitution to his grand theft victim, a golf course. The evidence supports the amount of the award, except for the portion reimbursing the golf course for a videotape surveillance system installed before the charged thefts. Court modify the restitution order to deduct the improper portion, and affirm.

Mother appeals from the judgment terminating the dependency status of her son, and issuing orders granting primary physical custody to the father, Appellant contends the juvenile court failed to base its custody decision on the best interests of the child, erroneously presuming Jimmy should remain with the father because he had been placed there by the juvenile court in San Bernardino County. Court find no error and affirm.

Court appointed counsel to represent Antonio Fausto on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against defendant, but advised this Court no issues were found to argue on defendant's behalf. Counsel has requested the examine the record in a search for any arguable issues.

As part of a negotiated guilty plea, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Pen. Code, S 11378) and to being under the influence of methamphetamine (Pen. Code, S 11550). Defendant also admitted three prior convictions under Health & Safety Code sections 11370.2 and 11370, subdivisions (a) and (c), four prior prison terms (S 667.5, subd. (b)), and one prior strike conviction (SS 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in prison for the possession charge and imposed a concurrent county jail term of 90 days for being under the influence, a misdemeanor. The court also imposed several fines and fees, including $200 in attorney's fees. Defendant appeals the attorney's fees order. Court find insufficient evidence of defendant's ability to pay the fees, and strike the order. COURT affirm the judgment as modified.

Appellant appeals from the order terminating her parental rights over her daughter, and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for Alicia pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellant contends the order must be reversed for failure to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. s 1901 et seq.). Court agree, and reverse the order.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition in three cases, appellant pled guilty to vehicle theft (Veh. Code, S 10851) with a prior vehicle theft conviction (Pen. Code, S 666.5) and admitted a state prison prior (Pen. Code, S 667.5, subd. (b)). (Case No. CR061196.) He also pled guilty to carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, S 12031) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, S 496). (Case No. CR061550.) Finally, he pled guilty to evading a police officer. (Veh. Code, S 2800.2.) (Case No. CR056079.) The agreed-upon sentence was six years. Other counts were dismissed and appellant received the agreed-upon sentence of six years.
Court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Judgment affirmed.

The mother of two-year-old child has appealed from orders of the juvenile court overruling her demurrer to an amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 342 subsequent petition filed by the San Francisco Department of Human Services (Department) and sustaining the jurisdictional findings on that section 342 petition, and from the jurisdiction and disposition findings and orders made at the six-month family maintenance review held pursuant to section 364. On January 25, 2007, the Department moved this court to dismiss this appeal because the juvenile court on November 15, 2006 terminated its dependency jurisdiction over Aaron C. No appeal was filed from the order dismissing the dependency. Relying upon In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, the Department argues the appeal is moot because the dependency action was terminated and this court could not give effective relief, were appellant to prevail on her appeal.

Appellant appeals from the judgment entered after his plea of no contest. Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in which he identifies no issues and asks this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel for appellant notified us that appellant wished to file a supplemental brief and court granted additional time for him to do so. On February 5, 2007, court received and filed appellant's letter dated January 19, 2007, and styled: Apprisal [sic] of Facts re Appeal, "which we understand to be appellant's supplemental brief.

This appeal arises from three criminal cases against defendant Thomas Michael Silva, who pleaded guilty to charges of receiving stolen property, attempting to pass a forged check, and failure to appear on a felony charge, and was sentenced to four years, four months in state prison and ordered to pay certain amounts in restitution, including $420 to Woody's Chevron. Defendant asserts two arguments on appeal: (1) that the imposition of the upper term of three years on the principal term violated Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely); and (2) that the order that he pay restitution in the amount of $420 to Woody's Chevron was improper since defendant was not charged with passing the forged checks that lead to Woody's loss. Court conclude that neither Blakely nor the recent decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) __ U.S. __ [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham), supports defendant's first contention. As to his second contention, court agree, as the People concede, that restitution to Woody's Chevron was improperly ordered. The abstract of judgment shall be amended to strike the $420 restitution order and affirmed in all other regards.

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder. At the time of the shooting, he lived in Richmond, but the shooting occurred in Vallejo. Soon afterward, police reviewed videotapes from a toll bridge connecting the two cities and failed to locate defendant's car at the expected time. Following the review, the tapes were reused rather than preserved as evidence. Defendant asserts various errors associated with the failure to preserve these tapes. In addition, defendant raises several instructional issues and contends that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing into the reliability of expert testimony regarding the use of defendant's cellular telephone on the night of the shooting. Court affirm.

Appellant was convicted of second degree murder. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in (1) declining to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; (2) making references to felony murder in the jury instructions, and (3) instructing the jury that it could consider appellant's initial false statements to the police as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Court find the first and second asserted errors to have been harmless, and reject appellant's claim of error as to the third. Accordingly, court affirm.

n October 2006, the juvenile court denied reunification services for petitioner and set a February 22, 2007 date for a permanency planning hearing in a dependency matter involving minor F.D. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, S 366.26.) Petitioner petitions for review of these orders, asking us to issue a writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate the orders denying her reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing. She asks us to order the juvenile court to require that reunification services be provided to her and seeks a stay of the permanency planning hearing. She contends that the juvenile court erred when it found that statutory provisions barring the provision of reunification services applied. (See S 361.5, subd. (b)(10) (11).) Real party in interest Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services opposes the petition. Court deny the petition on the merits.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of the murders of Michael Boyd (count 1) and Anthony Wells (count 2). (Pen. Code, S 187.) The jury found true the special circumstance allegations that defendant committed multiple murders (Pen. Code, S 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and that the victim in count 2 was intentionally killed because he was a witness to a crime. (Pen. Code, S 190.2, subd. (a)(10).) The jury also found defendant guilty of attempted murder of Howard Littleton (count 3) and found the attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. (Pen. Code, S 664, subd. (a).) On all counts, the jury found defendant personally used a firearm. (Pen. Code, S 12022.5, subd. (a)(1).)
In the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. At the sentencing hearing the penalty was modified, without objection by the People. As to counts 1 and 2, the court sentenced the defendant to life without the possibility of parole plus an additional five years for the use of a gun in the commission of the offenses. As to count 3 defendant was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole plus an additional five years for the use of a gun. All sentences were to run consecutively to one another. Court Affirm.