CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, S 366.26) to Minor. An issue regarding the possible applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. S 1901 et seq.) arose late in the proceedings. Despite multiple continuances and further hearings to address the issue, appellant contends the court failed to assure compliance with ICWA's notice requirements. On review, court affirm.

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole based on the criminal street gang special circumstance in Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(22). Appellant appeals the sentence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove two essential elements of the special circumstance allegation. Specifically, appellant argues the evidence did not show (1) he was an active participant in a criminal street gang or (2) he knew that the members of the gang engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity. Appellant contends his sentence should be reversed and the matter remanded for resentencing.
Court conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings regarding the criminal street gang special circumstance. Therefore, the sentence is affirmed.

Appellant was convicted by jury of the first degree premeditated murder of his wife, Frances "Geri" Russell. (Pen. Code, S 187, subd. (a).) In addition, the jury found Hall guilty of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, S 10851, subd. (a)), and of first degree robbery (S 212.5, subd. (a)). The jury found not true two special circumstances allegations that the murder had been committed for financial gain and had been committed during the commission of a robbery. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that Hall had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
The trial court sentenced Hall to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the murder count, plus a consecutive six-year upper term for the robbery, and a consecutive eight month term ( one third the middle term) for the vehicle theft. The court also imposed two consecutive one year terms for the prior prison term allegation. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Appellants appeal from a judgment decreeing a resulting trust for the benefit of respondent and her former husband, with respect to Mercado and Meza's marital home, and quieting title to the home in the name of Mercado. They contend that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding of a resulting trust for the benefit of Meza and Mercado, that any such trust violated law and public policy, and that Mercado had "unclean hands."
Court affirm the judgment.

Mother challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings pertaining to her son, and its dispositional orders removing him from her custody. During the pendency of the appeal, the juvenile court returned Austin to mother's custody and terminated dependency jurisdiction. Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) argues the appeal has therefore been rendered moot and should be dismissed. Court agree.

A jury found defendant guilty as charged of two counts of murder committed on March 29, 2002, and both the proximate result of personally and intentionally discharging a firearm, and intentionally killing the victims, Carlos Cornejo (count 1) and Jose Vargas, Jr., (count 2), for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, Ss 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d), 186.22, subd. (b), 190.2, subd. (a)(3)&(22)); one count of using a firearm to dissuade a witness, identified in the information only as April, from testifying or reporting a suspected crime, all for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, Ss 136.1, subd. (c)(1), 186.22, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3); one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Health and Saf. Code, S 11378; Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)) (count 4); and two counts of possessing a firearm for the benefit of a criminal street gang and after having previously been convicted of violating Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a) (Pen. Code, Ss 12021, subd. (a)(1), 186.22, subd. (b)) (counts 5 and 6). The jury further found true an allegation under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), that defendant had served a term in prison for his conviction in 2000 of illegally possessing a weapon in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a).
Based on the jury's verdicts and true findings, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison for two consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole on counts 1 and 2, the first degree murder convictions, with consecutive terms of 25 years to life on the firearms use and gang enhancements related to those counts.
Defendant contends in this appeal that the trial court erred by admitting various evidence at trial, the details of which court recount below in our discussion of the pertinent claim, and committed various errors during sentencing. Court agree with defendant's assertion that the trial court erred in finding that the prosecution had used due diligence in its effort to locate April Romero in order to subpoena her to appear and testify at trial, and therefore the trial court erred in admitting her preliminary hearing testimony. Court further conclude that error was prejudicial and requires reversal of defendant's convictions on count 3, the charge that defendant dissuaded April from testifying as a witness, count 4, the charge that defendant possessed methamphetamine for sale, and on count 5, the charge that defendant unlawfully possessed a .38 - caliber revolver. Therefore, court reverse defendant's convictions on those three counts. Court conclude defendant's other claims of error, the details of which court recount below, are meritless.

Parents seek writ review of juvenile court orders made at the 18-month review hearing terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Parents assert the court did not apply the proper legal standard to determine whether returning their daughter to parental custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child's safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being. They further contend that no substantial evidence supports the court's finding of detriment.
Court conclude the court abused its discretion when it based its finding of detriment on the stability of the child in foster care and her attachment to the foster mother. There is no substantial evidence to support a finding that the child would suffer serious, long-term emotional trauma if separated from the foster parent and returned to parental custody. Court further conclude the court's finding that Parents made no effort to visit their daughter is not supported by substantial evidence and is inconsistent with prior rulings of the trial court on that very issue. The parents satisfactorily completed their case plan in Mexico, and the Agency did not show that a return to parental custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child. Accordingly, court grant the relief requested.

In this case Mother alleges the juvenile court erred in finding the beneficial relationship exception to adoption of her son did not exist and a plan other than adoption would have been in Child's best interest. Court affirm.

Appellant appeals a juvenile court judgment of jurisdiction over his child. Appellant contends that insufficient evidence supports the finding of jurisdiction; that he was denied due process when he was not permitted to cross-examine child's mother,and that the court abused its discretion by not continuing the hearing. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant, the mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, Ss 366.26, 395.) Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the minor is adoptable. Court affirm.

Appellant seeks writ review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a permanency plan hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Court deny the petition.

Appellant, the mother of the minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating appellant's parental rights.
Appellant contends the juvenile court committed reversible error in failing to apply a statutory exception to termination of parental rights based on her regular visitation and a beneficial relationship with the minor. Appellant also claims the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights must be reversed because the finding by that court that it was likely the minor would be adopted was not supported by substantial evidence. Disagreeing with those contentions, court affirm.

Mother of the minors appeals from orders at an 18-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Appellant contends substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's finding that returning the minors to her care would create a substantial risk of harm. Alternatively, she argues the court should have continued services to her past the 18-month limit because reasonable services were not provided to her. Court affirm.

Petitioner petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contends the Board of Prison Terms (now the Board of Parole Hearings; hereafter, the Board) erroneously denied him parole. (See Pen. Code, S 3041, subd. (a).) Court grant the petition in a limited respect.
In 1982 petitioner was convicted of second degree murder for killing Joseph Lopez (Mr. Lopez) and assault with a deadly weapon, with great bodily injury, for shooting Mr. Lopez's wife, Caroline Lopez (Mrs. Lopez). (Pen. Code, Ss 187, 245, subd. (a).) Petitioner was sentenced to 15 years to life on the murder conviction. The sentences on the assault conviction and various firearm and injury enhancements were stayed.
Petitioner unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in the superior court. That court concluded the "record show[ed] individualized consideration of [petitioner's] case and a determination of [parole] unsuitability based on some evidence."
Petitioner then filed a habeas corpus petition with this court. Petitioner contends (1) there was no evidence to support the Board's findings of parole unsuitability and a three-year parole denial; (2) the Board violated due process by continuing to rely on the facts of the offense to deny parole; and (3) his shackling at the parole hearing was unconstitutional. Court issued an order to show cause to the Board on April 27, 2006. Court agree with petitioner that there was no evidence to support the three-year parole denial, and court grant the petition in that respect.