CA Unpub Decisions

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 minor 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.

Appellant was convicted by jury of the first degree premeditated murder of his wife. (Pen. Code,$187, subd. (a).) In addition, the jury found defendant guilty of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), and of first degree robbery ( 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 defendant 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.

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 of the felony of reckless evasion of a peace officer under California Vehicle Code section 2800.2 and driving without a valid license, a misdemeanor under section 12500, subdivision (a) of the same code. He was sentenced to the aggravated term of three years for the felony. The court struck two of his 'Three Strikes' law priors for sentencing, but used the third to double his term for the reckless evasion and added another year for another prior. The resultant sentence was imprisonment for seven years.
Appellant does not complain about the conduct of his trial, so a precis of its facts is not necessary. Appellant complains only that his sentencing was improper. Court find no flaw in the sentencing that court can address, and therefore affirm the conviction in its entirety.

Appellant appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent in this quiet title and breach of contract action. The judgment set aside a deed to Bernier and Hecker as joint tenants, declared Bernier was the sole owner of the property, and awarded her damages. Respondent argues the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine to exclude evidence of an oral agreement that Bernier intended the deed as a probate avoidance device, to take effect only upon her death. Court agree and reverse.

Appellant appeals from an order that granted the petition of Babette Stubbs, as Conservator of the Estate of Mildred Gayle Barrett, to terminate a joint tenancy in a residence Barrett owns with his wife, Mildred Gayle Barrett (known as Gayle). Barrett argues the trial judge misapplied the law, and improperly recharacterized community property as a joint tenancy. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant appeals from his convictions on charges of rape and sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16. His principal contention is that the trial court erred in addressing the refusal by the alleged victim, a minor, to testify concerning the circumstances of the offense. Court are constrained by paramount authority to conclude that, although the circumstances do not fall within any of the provisions of the governing statute, the trial court properly found the alleged victim to be 'unavailable as a witness' such that her preliminary hearing testimony was properly admitted. Nor can court say that defendant has established reversible error in any other respect. Accordingly, court affirm the judgment.

In August 2004, 15-year-old appellant committed a felony assault with a deadly weapon with force likely to produce great bodily injury for the benefit of a street gang, which capped a short but energetic assaultive career which began in April 2003 with misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon, a knife, on his mother's boyfriend. As a result of the August 2004 offense, appellant was placed in 'Boys' Republic' a California Youth Authority alternative program. Appellant appeals, contending the juvenile court abused its discretion because there was insufficient evidence for the court to find there was a probable benefit to him from the commitment.

On August 3, 2005, the Monterey County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that a minor, committed one count of attempted, premeditated murder and four counts of assault with a deadly weapon and further alleged that in committing the offenses, the minor personally inflicted great bodily injury and acted for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, $$ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 187, 245, subd. (a), 664, 12022.7, subd. (a).)
On November 21, 2005, the court conducted a jurisdictional hearing. It sustained the allegations of attempted murder and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, the gang allegations on each count, and the allegations of great bodily injury as to the attempted murder and one count of assault. Later, at the dispositional hearing, the court continued the minor as a ward of the court, calculated his maximum term as 29 years and seven months to life, and committed him to the California Youth Authority.
The minor appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders. Appellant claims there is insufficient evidence to support the findings of (1) attempted murder, (2) premeditation and deliberation, and (3) commission of the offenses for the benefit of a street gang. Court strike the gang finding, reverse the dispositional order, and remand the matter for further proceedings.

On March 7, 2006, defendant pled no contest to one count each of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than he, misdemeanor inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant, and misdemeanor violating a protective order; he also pled no contest to three counts of furnishing a minor with a controlled substance, and admitted the allegation on each count that the minor was at least four years younger than he. In exchange, instead of 19 years and two months in state prison he was to receive a maximum prison term of four years, eight months. While taking the plea, the trial court informed defendant that he would be ordered to pay actual restitution to the victim if there was any, and a restitution fund fine of a minimum of 220 and a maximum of 10,000. At sentencing, the court imposed the agreed-upon sentence and among other fines and fees, also ordered defendant to pay a restitution fund fine of $3,200 and suspended an additional $3,200 restitution fund fine. (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.) Defendant contends on appeal that the restitution fines exceeded the punishment contemplated by the plea bargain and must be reduced to the statutory minimum. Appellant also claims the court failed to advise defendant that he would have an opportunity to withdraw his plea if the court failed to follow the terms of the plea bargain. ( 1192.5.)
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction entered after he pled guilty to two counts of forgery (Pen. Code, §§ 470, subd. (d), 475, subd. (c); counts 1 & 6) and admitted that he served three prior prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a total term of six years and dismissed all remaining counts.
On appeal, defendant challenges the propriety of the order denying his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5). Specifically, defendant contends that the warrantless search of his residence was not justified, in that he was not on parole at the time the search was conducted. Finding no merit to this contention, court affirm the judgment with directions.

Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of: (1) felony hit-and-run driving with the accident causing death or serious permanent injury, and (2) misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter as a result of the negligent commission of a lawful act which might produce death. Appellant appeals the judgment on the ground that the trial court erred in declining to find the prosecution violated his constitutional due process rights by failing to preserve material evidence. Court affirm.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to a charge of felony petty theft with a prior and, in exchange, received a promise that three prior felony convictions would be stricken â€

The settlement of a class action included an agreement that class counsel could seek as much as $658,000 in attorney fees and costs. After appellant objected to the attorney fees aspect of the settlement, the trial court approved the settlement to the class, ordered an accounting of benefits, and made only a partial distribution of attorney fees. Ultimately, the trial court awarded class counsel the remaining $200,000 that had been set aside to pay attorney fees. Appellant appeals from the order awarding $200,000 in attorney fees, contending that the trial court erred in awarding this sum to class counsel rather than distributing it to class members. Court affirm the attorney fees order.