CA Unpub Decisions

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the orders of the juvenile court denying him reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his minor son. Court dismissed the petition.

Appellants pleaded guilty to transporting methamphetamine that was found in their vehicle during a traffic stop. Appellants contend the stop was unduly prolonged and the officers exceeded the scope of their consent, but court disagreed and affirmed their convictions.

Appellants seek review of an order granting the trial court’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Court found the trial court’s failure to find the mandatory dismissal statute was tolled during a period it was impossible or impracticable to bring the matter to trial was a clear error of law and therefore an abuse of discretion. Court reversed the order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

A jury convicted defendant of assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the gang offense of carrying a loaded firearm in public, and street terrorism. The jury acquitted defendant of attempted murder. The jury concluded defendant committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang and the trial court found he suffered two prior “strike” convictions, both for serious felonies, and had served two prior prison terms. The trial court exercised its discretion to strike one of the strikes and sentenced Ruiz to a total prison term of 25 years.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte that an initial aggressor regains the right of self-defense if the victim escalates a simple assault by responding with deadly force. Court rejected this contention because no reasonable juror could conclude the victim’s attempt to disarm Ruiz constituted excessive, unreasonable, or otherwise unlawful force. Therefore, no right of self-defense arose for Ruiz as the aggressor. Ruiz preserves a claim of sentencing error under Blakely v. Washington for federal review. Finally, the Attorney General concedes the trial court improperly imposed two prior prison term enhancements (one year each) while imposing prior serious felony enhancements on the same convictions. Accordingly, court affirmed the judgment and remanded with directions to correct the sentence.

Defendant was convicted of six counts of robbery and burglary and one count of street terrorism, as well as multiple enhancements. Defendant challenges the admissibility of his confession, the admissibility of a statement made by his mother to a police officer, and the sufficiency of the evidence as to the street terrorism counts and gang enhancements. Court found none of these arguments to be persuasive and affirm the judgment.
Defendant also makes two claims of clerical error as to the minute order, one of which appears to be well-taken. Court directed the clerk of the superior court to modify the minute order accordingly.

A jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon, residential burglary, criminal threats, and dissuading a witness by force. The jury found allegations that he used a knife and that a nonaccomplice was present during the burglary to be true. Defendant claims no evidence supported a flight instruction (CALJIC No. 2.52) and the court erred under Blakely v. Washington when it imposed consecutive terms. Court affirmed.

Appellant seeks review of an order granting the trial court’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Court found the trial court’s failure to find the mandatory dismissal statute was tolled during a period when it was impossible or impracticable to bring the matter to trial was a clear error of law and therefore an abuse of discretion. Court reversed the order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Father appeals from the judgment terminating parental rights to his two children. Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the “continuing benefit” exception to termination of parental rights. Court Affirmed.

Appellants seek review of an order granting the trial court’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Court found the trial court’s failure to find the mandatory dismissal statute was tolled during a period it was impossible or impracticable to bring the matter to trial was a clear error of law and therefore an abuse of discretion. Court reversed the order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mother appeals from an order of the juvenile court denying her modification petition, in which she sought two more months of reunification services or the immediate return to her custody of two-year-old Sierra, who mother’s husband, father, blinded by shaking violently when she was three months old. Mother contends the juvenile court violated due process by weighing the credibility of her allegations in support of her petition, thereby contravening the threshold prima facie standard for an evidentiary hearing on her petition. In a related claim, she argues the court erred in denying her modification petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Court Affirmed.

Father seeks extraordinary relief from juvenile court orders terminating reunification services and scheduling a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing for his daughter. Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the father’s custody of daughter would create a substantial risk of detriment to her. Orders Affirmed.

Mother petitions for extraordinary relief under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1, asking the court to set aside the juvenile court’s orders setting hearings pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She asks the court to vacate the orders setting the hearings and to direct the juvenile court to order reunification, visitation, and return of her children, to her custody. Court denied the petition on the merits.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 2 -- second degree robbery with personal use of a firearm and personal and intentional discharge of a firearm, two counts of second degree robbery with personal use of a firearm, and count 5 -- second degree robbery armed with a firearm. The court sentenced defendant to prison for 35 years. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 1- possession of methamphetamine and count 2 - possession of a smoking device, having suffered a prior felony conviction, and two prior felony convictions for which he served separate prison terms. The court sentenced him to prison for six years.
In this case, the court held that the trial court properly refused to strike appellant’s Three Strikes law prior felony conviction. In light of the nature and circumstances of appellant’s current felony offense and the qualifying prior conviction (a 1993 conviction for involuntary manslaughter), and in light of the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, appellant cannot be deemed outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law as to the prior conviction. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike the prior conviction.