CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
In case No. CRF18553, appellant, admitted one count each of driving under the influence with priors and driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater with priors. In case No. CRF18668 a jury convicted appellant of second degree murder. In a separate proceeding, defendant admitted an on-bail enhancement. On January 11, 2006, in case No. CRF18668, the court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life on his murder conviction and imposed a two year on-bail enhancement. The court also sentenced appellant to a two-year term on one of his convictions in case No. CRF18553 and a stayed term on his other conviction in that case.
Following independent review of the record, court found that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues existed. The judgment is affirmed. |
Appellant, a minor, admitted an allegation, contained in a juvenile wardship petition that he committed a misdemeanor possession of a firearm by a minor. The juvenile court readjudged appellant a ward of the court; and ordered that he remain on probation. As conditions of probation, the court ordered, inter alia, that appellant be committed to the Elkhorn “boot camp” facility for a period not to exceed one year and that he “[n]ot . . . use or possess narcotics or any other controlled substances or related paraphernalia and to stay away from places users congregated.” The court declared appellant’s maximum period of physical confinement (MPPC) to be 16 months, consisting of one year for the instant offense and four months for a misdemeanor violation of assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury, adjudicated in appellant’s previous wardship proceeding.
On appeal, appellant contends (1) the court erroneously failed to exercise its discretion in setting the MPPC, and (2) the drug condition is impermissibly overbroad. Court modified the drug condition and in all other respects affirmed. |
Mother appeals from jurisdictional findings and the consequent dispositional order that removed her sons,from her legal and physical custody. While not challenging the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over child, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), mother contends that the juvenile court erred in finding jurisdiction over another child, pursuant to subdivision (j) because substantial evidence does not support the findings under this subdivision. Mother further contends the order temporarily removing custody of both boys from her was not supported by evidence that removal was necessary to avoid a substantial danger to their physical health or emotional well-being and there were no reasonable means to protect their physical health without removing them from her custody. Court disagreed and affirmed the juvenile court’s order.
|
Appellant admitted allegations, contained in a supplemental juvenile wardship petition that he violated terms and conditions of probation granted in a previous wardship petition by being discharged from the Day Reporting Center for “lack of progress” evidenced by multiple disciplinary referrals, unexcused absences and positive drug tests. Following a disposition hearing, the court ordered appellant continued on probation and committed to the juvenile hall’s Ashjian Treatment Center for a period not to exceed 120 days, and declared a maximum period of physical confinement (MPPC) of three years four months, based on offenses adjudicated in previous wardship proceedings. Specifically, the MPPC consists of three years on a 2005 felony second degree burglary adjudication and four months on a 2005 adjudication of misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.
On appeal, appellant contends the court erroneously failed to exercise its discretion in setting the MPPC. Court affirmed. |
Defendant was convicted by jury of one count of carjacking, one count of vehicle theft with a prior conviction and one count of evading an officer with reckless driving. The jury found true a special allegation that defendant was armed with a firearm when he committed the carjacking.
On appeal, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for vehicle theft. Appellant alleges the trial court violated his right to due process when it admitted certain checks into evidence because they constituted evidence of uncharged prior offenses and argues the court should have excluded the checks under Evidence Code section 352 because they were more prejudicial than probative. Finally, defendant asserts that the court had the option of imposing a concurrent sentence on the evading count and that the court failed to exercise its discretion when it imposed a consecutive sentence on that count. Court found no error and affirmed the judgment.
|
Appellant appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her children and placing them for adoption. Mother asserts that the juvenile court committed reversible error in (1) failing to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act; (2) finding the children to be adoptable without substantial evidence in support of the finding; and (3) failing to find that the beneficial relationship exception to adoption applied. Mother also claims the case should be remanded because of subsequent events. Court found that the juvenile court failed to ensure compliance with the ICWA and reversed for further proceedings to ensure compliance.
|
The juvenile court found that defendant had committed two offenses: (1) possession of cocaine salt for sale, with a penalty enhancement that he did so for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The court sustained a wardship petition and ordered defendant into an out-of-home placement.
Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence that he possessed the cocaine salt for sale. He also contends that there is insufficient evidence that he possessed the narcotics for the benefit of, or that he actively participated in, a criminal street gang. Court disagreed and affirmed. |
Appellant appeals from juvenile court orders denying him status as a presumed father and terminating his parental rights. Mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights. Both parties argue the court violated the Indian Child Welfare Act. Court affirmed the juvenile court orders pertaining to Appellant. The order terminating Mother’s parental rights is vacated and remanded for compliance with the ICWA.
|
Defendant appeals from a conviction entered upon a negotiated plea of nolo contendere. Defendant's court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to independently review the record. There were no legal issues that required further briefing. The judgment and sentence imposed are affirmed.
|
Dozens of youth vandalized the home of a couple who were out of town. Defendant admitted participating in the party and taking two items worth about $50. The juvenile court found defendant jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the victims’ $19,000 after-insurance losses. Court concluded the juvenile court acted within its discretion in doing so and affirmed.
|
Petitioner is the father of young children within the dependency system with different mothers. Petitioner has filed a petition in each case challenging the respective orders setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Court granted relief in one minor (A114694) and deny relief in another (A114792).
|
Appellant has filed a petition for a writ under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1, challenging the juvenile court’s decision to set a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26, to consider whether mother’s parental rights as to her daughter should be terminated. Appellant contends the court erred when it declined to place child with him, and that the court’s ruling that the child would be at risk if she were placed with respondent is not supported by substantial evidence. Court rejected these arguments and denied the petition.
|
Respondent sued defendant Professional Association and Carolyn Leighton for breach of contract and fraud. Defendants cross-complained on various theories. A jury having been waived, the trial court awarded judgment for Danilovic in the amount of $65,000 plus prejudgment interest of $13,000 and, with the exception of an award of $5,700 for reimbursement for a computer in their favor, found against defendants on their cross-complaint. Appellant appeals from the judgment. Court affirmed.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023