CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 9. After examination of the record, Appellant’s counsel filed an “Opening Brief” which contained an acknowledgment that she had been unable to find any arguable issues. Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition without prejudice to the pursuit of appropriate proceedings in the superior court pursuant to section 1016.5. Order Affirmed.

Father is the presumed father of three children. Father appeals from an order of the juvenile court that he complete an alcohol rehabilitation program as part of his reunification plan. Father contends that such a program does not address the issues that led to the dependency and that he was denied due process when the juvenile court imposed the condition in his absence and without notice. The court affirmed the juvenile court’s order.

Defendant appeals from an order made after judgment denying a motion to modify his sentence. Defendant requested the court independently review the record. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from judgment entered following his no contest plea possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for the upper term of three years. Defendant requested the court independently review the record. Judgment Affirmed. br />

Father appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying father’s petition for modification pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, terminating the parental rights of Robert B. and Delia R. (Clarissa’s mother) pursuant to section 366.26 and ordering Clarissa placed for adoption. Family reunification services for father were terminated at the 12-month review hearing. The court later terminated reunification services for Delia R. and set a permanency planning hearing. The parents were provided with appropriate notice of the need to file a writ petition to review that order. In view of Robert B.’s failure to identify any cognizable legal error, the appeal was dismissed.

The juvenile court set a date for a hearing pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26 to terminate the parental rights of petitioner Valentina P. to her biological children, six-year old Thalia S. and three-year old Isaac R. Petitioner. filed her notice of intent to file writ petition. Her petition for extraordinary writ, filed is not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities. Appellant requests a stay of the section 366.26 hearing while she completes her prison term and the 15-month treatment program. Court declined to stay the hearing and denied the writ.

Defendants were convicted by a jury of first degree murder with two special circumstances, six counts of attempted murder, and shooting from a motor vehicle, all with gang and firearm and street terrorism enhancements. Each defendant was also convicted of a separate felony. Sentenced to prison terms that include life without the possibility of parole, all three defendants appeal. They raise a multitude of contentions, including challenges to the selection of the jury, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, violation of speedy trial rights, insufficient evidence of a special circumstance and enhancement, instructional error, and sentencing error.
As to Le’s, the court reversde the judgment due to prosecutorial misconduct. As to Keomanivong and Ek, court found error only in sentencing. Court modified the judgments as to sentencing and otherwise affirmed.

Petitioner appeals from the judgment denying her petition for administrative mandamus in which she seeks to vacate an order by the Department of Motor Vehicle suspending her driver’s license for driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 percent or greater. An administrative hearing was held at Appellant’s request, and the DMV introduced the arresting officer’s sworn statement as well as his investigative report. The investigative report references another report as an attachment, however no such attachment was introduced in evidence. The hearing officer found the suspension order was proper. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant pled no contest to two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale. Defendant admitted an on-bail allegation and a strike allegation. In exchange, five related counts were dismissed. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Defendant’s counsel requested that 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. Judgment Affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of count 2, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and its accompanying enhancements, but acquitted him of the other counts.
Defendant contends on appeal the trial court prejudicially erred in excluding his mother and sister from the voir dire stage of the trial in which the jury was selected. Judgment Reversed.

Father appeals the judgment freeing his daughter from his custody and control under Family Code section 7822. Citing In re Sade C., he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. This kind of a review is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting his custody of a child or his status as the child's parent." Appeal dismissed.

S.A. seeks review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under section 366.26. S.A. contends the court's finding that she was provided reasonable reunification services is not supported by substantial evidence, and therefore the court erred when it terminated reunification efforts and referred the case for a section 366.26 hearing. The court concluded that there is no evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that S.A. was provided reasonable reunification services, and court grant the petition.

Appellant appeals from an order confirming registration of a German judgment for child and spousal support. Appellant argues that there is no reciprocity between Germany and the United States regarding child and spousal support orders, that principles of comity do not apply, and that the German judgment is invalid because it was fraudulently obtained and the German court lacked jurisdiction over him. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to set aside a judgment in favor of respondent. Appellant contends the underlying judgment in a family law case was based on respondent’s perjury and fraud. Additionally, she maintains the lower court did not have jurisdiction over her separate property. Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment and affirmed its ruling.