CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of transporting cocaine. The trial court also found that defendant had violated probation in another case in which he pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine and cocaine, and revoked his probation. Defendant appeals asking the court to independently review the record. Court found no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.

In this dependency case, mother of the minor, appeals from the judgment of disposition. Appellant contends there was no substantial evidence to support jurisdiction. Court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellant contends the juvenile court erred by (1) denying her section 388 motion, and (2) not applying the beneficial parent-child relationship to adoption.
The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant, the maternal grandmother and former guardian of five of her grandchildren, seeks writ review of orders terminating her guardianship, denying her reunification services and referring the matter to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in denying her reunification services and in terminating the guardianship. Court denied the petition and denied the request for a stay.

Defendant was found to be a sexually violent predator and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital for a two-year term pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act. Thereafter, he was recommitted for a second term. This case involves defendant’s third and fourth recommitment terms. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court consolidated both recommitment petitions for trial. A jury once again found defendant to be an SVP. Defendant was therefore recommitted for both terms. Defendant contends: 1. The trial court erred by consolidating the recommitment petitions when defendant was ready to go to trial on one of them. 2. The trial court erred by preventing defendant’s counsel from questioning expert witnesses about the elements of indecent exposure. Court held that any error in consolidating the two recommitment petitions has become moot and that the trial court properly prevented the expert witnesses from testifying about the elements of indecent exposure. Court affirmed.

Appellants appeal from the trial court’s order denying their request for a preliminary injunction. They argue that “the only issue this Court need consider . . . is whether the trial court misinterpreted the [operating] [a]greement [for Winchester Cheese Company], upon which it based its ruling that [Appellants] would not prevail at trial on the merits.”
The order denying the preliminary injunction is affirmed. Defendants are awarded their costs on appeal.

Defendant pled guilty as charged in a felony complaint and was committed to state prison for 12 years and awarded the appropriate custody credits.
Defendant appealed requesting an independent review of the record. Court found no arguable issues. Judgment affirmed.

Minor admitted violations in three separate Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petitions, violations of Penal Code section 422, and terrorist threats. Minor appealed requesting an independent review of the record. Court found no arguable issues. Judgment affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to count one as charged and the special allegations were dismissed in the interests of justice. In accordance with the negotiated disposition, the defendant agreed “that she would give up her right to withdraw the plea and the trial court would no longer be bound by the plea agreement should appellant violate any term of her O.R. release.” Defendant was later found to be in violation of her Cruz waiver again and appellant was committed to state prison for 3 years less custody credits. Defendant appealed requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Court found no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to a violation of Health and Safety code section 11352, subdivision (a), and admitted the special allegations filed pursuant to Health and Safety code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Defendant appealed requesting the court to independently review the record. Court found no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.

Father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.22. Father has appealed asking the court to undertake an independent review of the entire record. Court find no arguable issues. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant, pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine and an arming enhancement. Three other counts and two prior prison term enhancements were dismissed. The court sentenced Garcia to prison for the low term of 16 months years for possession of methamphetamine and to a consecutive one-year term for the arming enhancement. Appellant’s total prison term is two years four months. The court granted applicable custody credits and imposed a restitution fine.
Respondent initially seeks to dismiss the appeal for appellant’s failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the search warrant and to suppress evidence retrieved as a result of the search. Appellant has requested this court to conduct independent review of a sealed portion of the search warrant and the reporter’s transcript of an in camera hearing conducted by the trial court. Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment.

Appellant was found guilty after a jury trial of attempted murder and assault with a firearm. The jury found true allegations appellant personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury, personally used a firearm, and inflicted great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced appellant on count one to an indeterminate life term, plus a term of 25 years to life. The court imposed a restitution fine, direct victim restitution, and granted applicable custody credits.
Appellant contends he was delusional when he shot the victim. Appellant argues the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 4.35, the mistake-of-fact instruction, and that its failure to do so prevented the jury from evaluating a viable defense. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant appeals from a defense verdict in his negligence action against respondent. Appellant argues there were various errors, but none are supported by the record. Court affirmed.<