CA Unpub Decisions

Petitioner petitions this court for an extraordinary writ challenging the juvenile court’s order setting a permanent plan hearing as to her two daughters. Court denied her petition.

Father of dependent daughters, petitions for extraordinary writ review of orders setting a permanency planning hearing and terminating reunification services. Court denied the writ, but instructed the juvenile court to ensure that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has complied fully with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in title 25 of the United States Code, section 1912, subdivision (a) before proceeding with the scheduled permanency planning hearing.

After terminating defendant's probation in two separate cases, the court imposed a two-year prison term in the first case and a concurrent term of the same length in the second case, but awarded presentence custody credits in the first case only. The court also imposed a separate restitution fine in each case. Defendant argues the court should have awarded presentence custody credits in both cases, and imposed only one restitution fine. Defendant also seeks to correct a miscalculation of the number of days spent in custody. Court corrected the credit miscalculation, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, 10 counts of first degree residential burglary, four counts of attempted residential burglary, two counts of vehicular burglary, and one count of possession of a billy club. The trial court found true prior serious felony conviction allegations and sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 53 years, 8 months.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained by the warrantless installation and monitoring of an electronic tracking system inside his truck and by denying his motion for self-representation under Faretta v. California. Court found no error and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a spouse with the understanding he would receive a suspended state prison term of three years and be placed on probation. The trial court sentenced defendant accordingly. The trial court also ordered defendant to serve 270 days in county jail and issued a restraining ordered protecting defendant’s spouse and son. The trial court later revoked defendant’s probation after finding he had violated the restraining order. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that he willfully violated the restraining order; (2) even if he did willfully violate the restraining order, the violation was minor and should not have resulted in the revocation of his probation; and (3) the trial court imposed an unauthorized second restitution fine when he ordered execution of his three-year prison sentence. Court modified the judgment with respect to fines and fees and otherwise affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree burglary. The trial court found true four serious felony allegations, and eight strike allegations, arising from eight prior first degree burglary convictions. The trial court declined to strike any of the prior convictions and sentenced defendant to state prison for 25 years to life for the burglary plus 20 years for the prior convictions.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) evidence of his spontaneous declaration was erroneously excluded, (2) his request for CALJIC No. 2.21.2 was erroneously refused, (3) his Romero[1] motion to strike seven of his eight strikes was erroneously denied, and (4) his sentence of 45 years to life constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Court affirmed the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree burglary, attempted carjacking, and resisting an executive officer with force or violence. In connection with count 1, the jury found true that another person, other than an accomplice, was in the burglarized residence making the offense a violent felony. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found two strike priors, one prior serious felony, and three prior prison term allegations to be true.
The court sentenced defendant to state prison for an indeterminate term of 75 years to life and a determinate term of eight years. Defendant appeals. Appellant contends (1) the trial court erroneously denied his request to represent himself, (2) insufficient evidence supports his convictions for first degree burglary and attempted carjacking and (3) the trial court erroneously excluded the introduction of exculpatory evidence. Court affirmed the judgment.

An information charged defendant with 12 counts of lewd and lascivious conduct involving three young children. Defendant entered negotiated pleas of no contest to six of these counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 18 years and dismissed the remaining charges.
On appeal, defendant’s sole claim of error is that the trial court violated principles enunciated in Blakely v. Washington when imposing sentence. Court affirmed the judgment.

Pursuant to a negotiated settlement, defendant pled no contest to what is commonly referred to as petty theft with a prior and to failure to appear after release on own recognizance. He was sentenced to state prison for two years eight months. On appeal, defendant requests the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Defendant appeal from an order awarding attorney’s fees to Plaintiff after plaintiff prevailed in a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to invalidate appellant’s adoption of a negative declaration and in effect to require appellants to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Court affirmed the judgment on the petition in a separate nonpublished opinion, Court now affirms the order awarding attorney’s fees against appellant.

Defendant was charged with cultivating marijuana, possessing marijuana for sale, selling marijuana, and resisting arrest. Defendant asserted a medical marijuana defense to the marijuana charges. The jury found her guilty of cultivation, but acquitted her of the remaining offenses. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on five years’ probation, on the condition (among others) that she serve 90 days in jail. The jail term was stayed pending appeal.
On appeal from the order granting probation, defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding her medical expert from testifying and in limiting the testimony of her cannabis expert. Defendant also contends the trial court erred in imposing various nonmandatory fines and fees, including appointed counsel fees, because she did not have the ability to pay. Finally, defendant contends the trial court failed to give her three days of custody credit to which she was entitled.
Court concluded that the defendant has shown no error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings because she failed to make adequate offers of proof of the proposed testimony the trial court excluded. The court further concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining defendant had the ability to pay various fees and fines at the rate of $20 per month, but did err in not separately listing, with the statutory basis, all fines, fees, and penalties imposed.

Defendant pleaded no contest to manufacturing methamphetamine and admitted two narcotics related prior convictions. A count of possession of methamphetamine was dismissed. On appeal, defendant requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
Court's review of the record discloses two errors on the abstract of judgment. First, the restitution fines were imposed in the amount of $1,000 each, but the abstract erroneously lists them as $500 each. Second, the court security fee, booking fee and classification fees, along with the penalties and assessments, must be listed on the abstract. Court direct the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment. Court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Defendant pleaded no contest to having a concealed weapon in a vehicle in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count and a separate pending matter. On appeal, defendant requested the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

In three consolidated cases, defendant pleaded guilty to failure to appear on a felony charge and two counts of driving or taking a vehicle. In exchange, seven related counts, related enhancements and five unrelated cases were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years four months plus fines. On appeal, the court requests the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.