CA Unpub Decisions

As a result of a buccal swab taken in February 2011 after Stephen Joseph Dragasits's arrest on another charge, police found incriminating evidence connecting Dragasits to crimes occurring in April 2011. Dragasits unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence, and thereafter a jury convicted him of two counts of shooting at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246; counts 3 and 4) and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 5 and 6). On the count 3 offense of shooting at an occupied vehicle, the jury found true allegations that Dragasits personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).

N.A., mother of minors M.M. and S.R. (minors), appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26 & 395.) Mother contends the juvenile court and the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family, and Adult Services (Department) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)
We affirm the juvenile court’s (order) judgment.

Jason Schlig appeals the sentence entered after remand from our prior decision in his case, which reversed his convictions for two counts of attempted murder and one count of second degree murder, but affirmed his conviction for discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle. On remand, the People elected not to retry Schlig on the second degree murder charge and our remittitur therefore modified the conviction to manslaughter. The trial court then sentenced Schlig to a determinate term of 7 years plus an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for a firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d). Schlig appeals his new sentence. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant, S.G. (Mother), appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her four children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivisions (a), (b), (j), and (g). D.H. (Father H.) and J.D (Father D.) join in Mother’s appeal. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s orders suspending her monitored telephone calls with the children. She argues that suspending visitation foreclosed her ability to assert the parent-child bond exception to termination of her parental rights.

A jury found Augustin Salas guilty of attacking Jane Doe, convicting him of three counts of sexual penetration by force; one count each of kidnapping, making criminal threats, and false imprisonment; and two counts of domestic violence battery. On appeal, Salas raises three arguments based on what he suggests is a lack of substantial evidence. He contends, first, that the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the asportation element of the kidnapping conviction, because he did not move Doe a sufficiently substantial distance. Second and third, Salas argues that, because the record lacks sufficient evidence to support three separate offenses of sexual penetration, the jury's conviction on one of the sexual penetration counts must be reversed, and the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive terms based on the court's finding that each of the three violations occurred separately.

A jury convicted Joseph Dawayne Green (Joseph) and Christopher Jermaine Green (Christopher) (collectively appellants), of premeditated and deliberate attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 1), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 2 & 3), being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts 4 [Joseph] and 5 [Christopher]), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 6). As to counts 1 through 3, the jury found true allegations appellants committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subds. (b)(1)(B) & (C)). As to count 1, the jury also found true allegations appellants personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during the commission of the offense (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.53, subd. (c)). Finally, as to counts 2 and 3, the jury found true allegations appellants personally used a firearm during the com

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Margie G. Woods and Michael S. Groch, Judge. Affirmed.
David K. Rankin for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Dion Anthony Miller pleaded guilty to drug sales after his motions to suppress evidence were denied. Appellate counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Miller's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Miller the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.

This is the third appeal arising from the dissolution of the marriage of Joseph W. and Lisa Ippolito. Joseph appeals an order issued October 25, 2017, which (1) denied Joseph's request for bifurcation and dissolution of marital status and (2) modified child and spousal support orders. We conclude the order denying his request for a bifurcated trial of the marital status is not appealable. We further conclude Joseph has not met his burden on appeal to show the court abused its discretion in modifying child and spousal support orders. We, therefore, affirm the order.

As relevant to this appeal, a jury convicted Bobby Lee Machado of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1); simple assault (§ 240) and simple battery (§ 242), as lesser included offenses of battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2); corporal injury to a significant other (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 3); and simple assault (§ 240) and battery of a significant other (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)), as lesser included offenses of corporal injury to a significant other (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 8). The court sentenced him to a total prison term of seven years eight months, including a sentence of 12 months for count 2, which the court stayed under section 654, and a concurrent sentence of 12 months for count 8.

A jury convicted Destin Lee Withers of first degree murder for the 2008 homicide of Randy V. and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court then sentenced Withers to life in prison without parole. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), former 12021, subd. (a)(1). ) On appeal, Withers argues the court allowed improper lay opinion testimony from a jailhouse informant regarding whether Withers was joking or sincere when he wrote, "I just admitted to killing Randy☺?" Withers also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support his first degree murder conviction and argues the court was required to give a unanimity instruction on the firearm possession count as to which firearm he possessed. Rejecting each of these contentions, or finding any error harmless, we affirm the judgment.

Appellant S.T., mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; statutory section references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise set forth.) Having previously had her petition for extraordinary writ denied by this court, she reasserts her contention that the juvenile court erred in terminating her reunification services. She also contends the juvenile court erred in permitting the social worker to testify at the 12-month review hearing regarding her opinion that mother was incapable of learning to parent the minor and in subsequently authorizing placement of the minor in Georgia.

S.A. (mother) and B.L. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights for minors Ad.L., I.L., Aa.L., and D.L. (collectively, the minors). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Mother and father contend the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial parental relationship exception applied to the minors. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We will affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Edward James Ferreras appeals from an order sentencing him to an eight-month term consecutive to the sentence he was serving on another case arising out of Los Angeles County (Case No. SBA YA097127-01). We affirm.
Ferreras was arrested when a Ventura police officer approached him and saw a knife sheath in his waistband under his pants. He pled guilty to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310) and was sentenced to one-third the mid-term, consecutive to a sentence he was then serving on another case. The trial court struck two prior strike convictions after Ferreras admitted those convictions.

The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over four-year-old Lilianna (born 2012) after sustaining allegations that she was at risk of harm because her father Genaro (father) had a violent criminal history and possessed child pornography in the home; her mother G.A. (mother) knew or reasonably should have known of father’s possession of child pornography and failed to protect her; and mother allowed the maternal grandfather to reside in the home after mother knew he had sexually molested another child relative.