CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant of attempted voluntary manslaughter and sustained allegations that he personally used a firearm and personally inflicted great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison.
On appeal, defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter. Court rejecst the contention and affirms the judgment.

A minor and ward of the court based upon previously sustained petitions, admitted to violating probation. The juvenile court committed the minor to the California Youth Authority (CYA) with a maximum confinement time of 132 months.
On appeal, the minor contends the CYA commitment was an abuse of discretion, and the juvenile court committed the minor without the benefit of a complete and thorough social study. Court affirms.

Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court found that minor and ward of the juvenile court based upon several previously sustained petitions, had committed robbery and misdemeanor battery. Minor was continued a ward and placed on probation on the condition, among others, that he serve 180 days in the San Joaquin County Camp, in addition to 44 days credit for time served.
On appeal, the minor contends that several of his probation conditions must be struck or modified; the juvenile court failed to exercise discretion when setting the maximum term of confinement; and the dispositional minute order must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment. Court affirms with orders for the juvenile court to correct the dispositional minute order to reflect its oral judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Defendant admitted two prior prison terms, one of which was a strike. Defendant moved to strike the strike prior pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero). The trial court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years, doubled pursuant to the strike, plus one year for the prior conviction, for a total of five years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the court’s denial of his Romero motion was an abuse of discretion. Court disagrees, and affirms the judgment.

Father appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights upon the petition of the minor’s stepfather. Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence he left the minor or intended to abandon him pursuant to section 7822.
The record shows that for over a one year period following a separation from his wife, appellant voluntarily left the minor with her and at best made only token efforts to see him. Appellant argues inter alia that the one-year requirement was not satisfied because during the year the minor was judicially taken from him when his wife filed a dissolution proceeding that placed the minor in her sole legal and physical custody without a visitation order and he thereafter was legally barred from seeing the minor. Court disagrees.
Appellant voluntarily failed to appear in the dissolution proceeding notwithstanding that he was given notice of the relief his wife sought and the court subsequently ordered, and he did not seek modification of the order until over two years after it was entered. Appellant cannot claim the refuge of a court order he impliedly consented to. There was no judicial taking of the minor.
Court affirms the judgment.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to resisting an executive officer with force or violence, a felony, in exchange for a stipulated two-year prison sentence and dismissal of the remaining charges. Among the conditions of defendant’s plea were that he would (1) be released on his own recognizance pending sentencing after entering a Cruz waiver, and (2) agree to “give up [his] right to file any type of an appeal.” Defendant failed to appear for sentencing.
In a second case, Defendant entered a “straight up” guilty plea to failing to appear after being released on his own recognizance, and admitted a prior strike conviction. The trial court denied defendant’s motions to strike his prior strike conviction and/or reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor and sentenced him to an aggregate term of six years in prison, consisting of four years (twice the middle term) for failing to appear, plus two years, with credit for 48 days (32 actual and 16 good conduct).
In the first case, the court sentenced defendant to two years in prison to run concurrent with his sentence in case second case.
Defendant appeals. Defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, the court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to receiving stolen property and possessing a short-barreled shotgun in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts, with a Harvey waiver.
The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to three years and eight months in prison, consisting of three years (the upper term) for receiving stolen property, plus a consecutive eight months for possessing a short-barreled shotgun. The court ordered defendant to pay an $800 restitution fine, an $800 parole revocation fine, victim restitution in an amount to be determined and a $40 court security fee. The court declined to award defendant any pre-sentence custody credit, finding his custody status was not solely attributable to the instant offenses. Defendant appeals. Appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, the court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possession of a deadly weapon, a billy club, and receiving stolen property in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts as well as certain other misdemeanor cases and the prosecutor’s recommendation of probation with no state prison at the outset which did not bind the court. Defendant appeals.
The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of six counts of lewd acts on a child and two counts of annoying or molesting a child, and the court found true one serious felony prior conviction allegation and two prior strike conviction allegations. The court sentenced Simonton to 36 years to life. Simonton appealed, asserting several claims, but this court affirmed the convictions, and the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for review.
The petition is denied.

Plaintiff brought an action against the Defendant, alleging the District's refusal to rehire her for a custodian position constituted gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The jury found plaintiff did not prove these claims, and the superior court entered judgment in the District's favor.
On appeal, appellant contends the court erred in denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the District failed to satisfy its burden, under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, to identify the reason it did not hire her with respect to eight open custodial positions. This contention is without merit. The McDonnell Douglas analysis is inapplicable to a motion brought after a jury reached its verdict. In any event, even assuming the analysis applies, appellant's contention that the District did not meet its McDonnell Douglas burden is unsupported by the factual record. Appellant also challenges the court's earlier order granting summary adjudication of her breach of an implied contract claim. The court concludes that the juvenile court properly granted summary adjudication on this cause of action. Court thus affirms the judgment.

Appellant appealed a judgment favoring respondent on appellant's first amended cross-complaint for fraud/deceit entered after the court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment. Court rejected appellant's claims and affirmed the judgment. Revelle then moved in the trial court for attorney fees and costs. The trial court awarded respondent $446,507.50 in attorney fees. Appellant appealed. This court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion in making the award. Appellant then moved for his attorney fees and costs incurred in defending against respondent's fee motion. Respondent renewed his motion for fees and costs. The trial court denied appellant's motion and granted Respondent $473,832.50 in attorney fees and $1,926.70 in costs. Appellant appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion and granting respondent's. Judgment Affirmed.

Plaintiff sued defendants for wrongful death and elder abuse, arising out of the death of her mother. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that appellant’s lawsuit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On appeal from the ensuing judgment, Appellant insists that the statute was tolled when she complained to the Medical Board of California that respondent had falsified her mother’s death certificate, and that the filing of her complaint, i.e., nearly six months after the Board filed an accusation against respondent, was within the one-year limitation period. Alternatively, mother argues defendants, by reason of their conduct, should be estopped from asserting the statute as a defense. Finding no error, court affirms.

Defendant pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine and admitted having suffered a strike prior. As part of his plea bargain, he waived his right to appeal. Defendant was sentenced to the agreed-to term of 2 years, 8 months in prison. There is no certificate of probable cause in the record before this court. Court concluded the independent review of the record and found no arguable issues.

Appellant asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion because: (1) there was no substantial evidence to support the decision to deny him reunification services as he neither resisted nor refused drug treatment within the three years prior to the children’s removal; and (2) there was no evidence that providing him services would be detrimental to the children. Court disagrees on both points. Judgment Affirmed.