CA Unpub Decisions

After admitting numerous increasingly serious crimes, minor was committed by the juvenile court to the California Youth Authority. The minor appeals contending the juvenile court abused its discretion in making the commitment. Court disagrees and affirms the order.

Defendent challenges his motion to suppress evidence. Court reverses because the record is bereft of facts to sustain the search of his motel room by a police officer who entered it through a back window without a warrant or any other lawful basis for entry.

Minor was a ward of the juvenile court based upon previously sustained petitions, minor admitted a charge of committing assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. Two days prior to the dispositional hearing, the minor turned 18 years old. Minor appeals contending that it was a denial of equal protection of laws for the juvenile court to deny him good time/work time credits, and his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to raise this issue in the juvenile court. Order Affirmed.

A decision regarding (1) being a felon in possession of firearm (Lucretia and Singleton); (2) possessing a short-barreled rifle (Lucretia, Shamarra, and Singleton); and (3) brandishing a firearm.
Shamarra's judgment (order granting probation) is reversed, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the issue of reimbursement of attorney fees. Lucretia and Singleton, the judgments of conviction are affirmed, but the orders for reimbursement of the cost of legal assistance are reversed and the cases are remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the issue of reimbursement of attorney fees.

A decision regarding Complaint for Joinder and action for breach of a written postjudgment agreement and for fraud arising from that postjudgment agreement. The complaint’s causes of action for breach of a written postjudgment agreement and for fraud arising from that postjudgment agreement do not constitute an attack on the 2001 judgment and thus are not time-barred. Judgment Reversed.

Appeal from dependency court order (1) denying appellant Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to modify a prior order denying appellant's reunification services; and (2) terminating his parental rights to his daughter. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition. Court affirms.

Appeal from the order denying appellant's motion to set aside a probate court judgment that determined appellant did not own a life estate in her late mother's home. Appellant contends that the hearing was held without sufficient notice. Because appellant did not object to lack of notice and contested the matter on the merits, court holds that any notice deficiencies were waived. Court order affirmed.

Appeal from a disposition entered after the juvenile court found true allegations that appellant had possessed a concealed weapon, possessed cocaine base for sale, possessed cocaine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm, and possessed marijuana for sale. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Court disagree and will affirm the disposition.

A decision regarding an appeal from a judgment dismissing action in its entirety after the superior court sustained a demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff argues she alleged sufficient facts to support a cause of action in equity to set aside the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of her previous lawsuit. Judgment Affirmed.

A jury found defendant guilty of the offense defined by Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a), making it unlawful for "any person, while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law . . . in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver." The jury further found that in committing the offense, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim and hit and run driving, resulting in injury, and found true allegations that defendant had suffered four prior felony convictions, one of which was charged as a strike.
Defendant contends that reversible error resulted from the failure of the court to instruct the jury that to find him guilty of violating Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a), they had to agree on the “act forbidden by law“ that defendant committed while driving while intoxicated. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 13 years 4 months in state prison. Court affirm.

Mother of a minor appeals from the dispositional order by which the juvenile court declared minor a dependent child. Mother advances two substantial evidence arguments. First, she contends the court's jurisdictional finding lacks the requisite evidentiary support. Second, mother contends that the part of the jurisdictional order not returning minor to her custody is subject to the same defect. Court conclude that both contentions are without merit, and court affirm.

Parents contend that the juvenile court erred when it found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable reunification services were offered and that the children are part of a sibling group. They also contend that the court denied father due process by refusing to allow evidence at the six-month review hearing to attack the children’s credibility, and that the judge was biased against their attorney and should have recused himself. No error found. Court denies petition.

A decision regarding vehicle theft, burglary of a vehicle, petty theft with specified priors, receiving stolen property, misdemeanor being under the influence of a controlled substance, vehicle theft, and misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer. Court finds no arguable issue on appeal, and Defendent never submitted a written argument. Judgment Affirmed.

A criminal law decision regarding burglary, assault, and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime. On appeal, Defendant contends eight errors that cumulatively violated his due process rights. Court finds no prejudicial error. Judgment Affirmed.