CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of seven counts of committing lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 and of misdemeanor child abuse. Sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 years in state prison, defendant appeals. Defendant contends the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome and that, even if the syndrome evidence was generally admissible, the prosecution asked improper hypothetical questions. Court affirmed.

Father of two-year-old minor, appeals from an order terminating his parental rights. Father contends that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights because he had established the parental relationship exception under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). Court Affirmed.

Defendant was spotted by police engaging in a hand-to-hand transaction. Police followed him and found him in possession of a bindle containing individual pieces of rock cocaine. A search incident to arrest revealed several crumpled bills of small denomination in his pocket. Defendant was convicted of possession for sale of cocaine base. Defendant appeals, asserting there was insufficient evidence that the cocaine base in his possession was possessed for purposes of sale. Court disagreed and affirmed.

Apellant and respondent share an irrigation canal; a dispute arose over how much each should pay for a fish screen in the canal. This case returns to this court following remand for a trial to determine the reasonable cost of modification of the fish screen and resolution of two other pending cases between the parties. Appellant appeals, raising two contentions. First, it contends the trial court erred in determining the reasonable cost; it argues the court erred in accepting the estimate prepared before the work was done rather than the estimates made afterwards. It also contends the estimate the court accepted failed to account for the substantial excavation and concrete work required. Second, appellant contends the trial court erred in awarding respondent one-half of the proceeds from a contract appellant has with Ramirez Water District for delivery of irrigation water.
Court modified the judgment. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of the reasonable cost. The trial court erred, however, in awarding respondent half of the proceeds from the Ramirez contract. The judgment is modified to delete the award of $133,776.55 to respondent.

Defendant pled guilty to receiving stolen property and admitted serving two prior prison terms and four prior strike convictions. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the prior convictions were struck. The trial court suspended a five-year sentence and placed defendant on five years formal probation with credit for time served. Defendant subsequently admitted to violating probation, and the trial court imposed execution of the original sentence.
On appeal, defendant contends there are several errors in the abstract of judgment. The Attorney General concedes error and joins defendant. Court accepted the concession and remanded with orders to correct the abstract of judgment.

Appellant, the father of the minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating appellant’s reunification services. Appellant contends the juvenile court committed prejudicial error in terminating his reunification services. Disagreeing with that contention, court affirmed.

Father of the minor, appeals, in propria persona, from orders of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights. Appellant seeks an opportunity to reunify with the minor contending that he complied with all the plan requirements except for those he was financially unable to complete. Appellant also argues the court erred in failing to grant his request for new counsel and that the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency failed to consider his relatives for placement. Court affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of one count of selling or furnishing cocaine base but acquitted him of another count of selling or furnishing cocaine base, and conspiracy to sell or furnish cocaine base. In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found Lynch had one prior prison term and two strike priors. The court struck one strike prior and sentenced defendant to prison for nine years: a middle term of four years, doubled for the strike prior, and a consecutive one-year term for the prison prior.
Defendant appeals, contending the court erroneously failed to sua sponte instruct in the language of CALJIC No. 17.01, the unanimity instruction. Court affirmed the judgment.

The juvenile court found that the minor, came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, subdivision (b). It authorized placement of the child with the mother on condition that she remain in the home of the maternal grandparents. The court ordered that the father, should have no contact with the mother or maternal relatives unless supervised.
Father appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support the order to remove the child from his physical custody. Order Affirmed.

This appeal presents the issue of whether an attorney can simultaneously represent a client in his capacity as the personal representative of an estate and the same client in his capacity as a creditor of that estate. Appellant, contends that such representation violates the attorney’s ethical duty of loyalty. According to appellant, that one person needs separate representation for each capacity.
As discussed in case, a violation of the duty of loyalty does not exist in this situation. The attorney represents only one client. Further, the procedure under Probate Code section 9252 requiring court approval of a personal representative’s creditor’s claim protects both the estate and the beneficiaries from any potential conflict of interest between the client as a personal representative and the client as a creditor. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to disqualify counsel. The order is affirmed.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained an allegation against appellant that he committed assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting great bodily injury. The court adjudged appellant a ward of the court, determined the maximum term of confinement to be seven years, and committed appellant to the county boot camp for a minimum of 90 days. Appellant’s placement later was modified when he developed a medical condition, and he was ordered to spend 45 days in the juvenile center. Appellant contends that his constitutional rights were violated when certain hearsay statements were admitted; that the juvenile court erred when it failed to make a finding pursuant to Penal Code section 26; and that the juvenile court erred when it failed to exercise its discretion in setting a maximum term of confinement under Welfare and Institutions Code section 731. As to each argument, appellant also contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court found no merit to appellant’s claims. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant served as the elected sheriff of respondent County of Kern from 1991 through 2002. County subsequently sued appellant for alleged misconduct occurring while he was in office. Relying on Government Code section 31000.6, Sparks demanded that respondent Kern County Board of Supervisors provide him with a defense. The trial court ruled that this section did not apply to former sheriffs. The issue before this court is whether the trial court erred in ruling that the Board was not required to provide a defense for appellant's pursuant to this section, as it existed at the time the contested ruling was made. Court concluded the trial court did not err. Judgment Affirmed.

The County of Stanislaus petitions for a writ of review contending a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board awarding Judy B. Credille leg braces was unsupported by substantial evidence. Court denied the petition and remand the matter to the WCAB to award supplemental attorney fees.

A jury convicted defendants of conspiracy and attempted robbery, and found true the allegations one defedant was vicariously armed and Guerrero used a gun during the crime. They argue the trial court committed instructional error when it omitted a specific intent requirement on the conspiracy charge. Guerrero also contends the court should have given a unanimity instruction on the use allegation. Finding no basis to overturn the judgment, court affirmed.