CA Unpub Decisions

H.S. (Mother) seeks writ relief from an order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. She contends the court should have found extenuating circumstances to extend services and challenges the court’s finding that she was provided reasonable services. We deny the petition on the merits.

M.M. (Mother) and C.G. (Father), the parents of three children, appeal from an order terminating their parental rights. Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it determined the benefits of continuing her relationship with the children did not outweigh the benefits of adoption. Father joins in Mother’s arguments and asserts that, if they prevail, the order terminating parental rights should be reversed as to both parents. The order is supported by the record and complies with the law, so we affirm it.

Jonathan A. appeals from a juvenile court order recalling his arrest warrant and dismissing wardship proceedings unsuccessfully. His appointed counsel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We have reviewed the record and affirm.

This unfortunate case arises from the efforts by Officer Clay Warford to arrest a fleeing suspect who was wanted on a no-bail felony fugitive warrant. Unfortunately, during that pursuit, Warford came upon an 85-pound pit bull in a back yard the officer entered chasing the suspect. The legal issue here is whether Officer Warford was in violation of the Fourth Amendment by pursuing the suspect as he did. The second issue arises because the officer shot the pit bull in the leg, injuring the dog. We are therefore obligated to determine whether entry into appellant’s back yard in pursuit of the suspect gives rise to qualified immunity. The trial court granted summary judgment for the respondent on each legal issue here. We affirm.

Following a bench trial, defendant Alfredo Knight was found guilty of sexual battery by restraint (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)), and lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor § 288, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to a total term of four years in state prison. He appeals from the judgment, arguing (1) his jury trial waiver was invalid, (2) the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the sexual battery charge because defendant and the victim are Native Americans and the crime occurred on an Indian reservation, (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for sexual battery by restraint, and (4) he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. We affirm.

On the night of March 27, 2015, defendant Kenneth Young was in a van with
co-defendant Gary Gates in the parking lot of The Spot nightclub in Union City when Tjorn Magee and Anthony Boyd, driving Young’s gold Lexus, pulled up beside them. In the confrontation that followed, Young shot and killed Magee. A jury convicted Young of first degree murder and of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and found true the special allegation that he had used a firearm during the commission of the offense causing great bodily injury or death.

A jury found Kristen Jason Bell guilty of second degree burglary of a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1), two counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); counts 3, 4), possession of a burglary tool (§ 466; count 5), and resisting a police officer (§ 148, subd. (a); count 6). The court found Bell committed the crimes while on bail (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Bell to five years and three months in county jail, but stayed execution of the two-year on-bail enhancement term.
Bell appeals. First, Bell argues he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury when the court denied his challenges for cause. Second, Bell contends the court erred when it refused to split his sentence between a term in county jail and a period of mandatory supervision. The Attorney General concedes the court erred during sentencing. We conclude the error was not harmless. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm.

A jury found Patino guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child under age 14, assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury, and criminal threats. He was sentenced to 17 years, eight months in prison.

We affirm.

Defendant Demetrius Thompson appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)), second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to the high term of eight years in prison for the rape (Pen. Code, § 264, subd. (a)), with concurrent sentences for the other offenses. He contends the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the victim continued working as a prostitute after the crimes. We shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Gustavo Moran was convicted of first degree murder, with a firearm enhancement. He was 15 years old at the time of the crime. On appeal, he contends that his confession should not have been admitted, that the trial court committed instructional error, that the evidence is insufficient to show he acted with malice, that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, that his sentence of 50 years to life constituted cruel and unusual punishment, that he is entitled to a transfer hearing on whether the matter should have proceeded in juvenile court, and that the trial court should consider whether to strike the firearm enhancement.

Defendant Jose Eduardo Garcia pleaded no contest to violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) in exchange for probation and a six-month county jail sentence. While on probation, he admitted a number of probation violations and then failed to appear for sentencing on those admitted violations. Nine months later, defendant was arrested. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s request for a continuance to retain private counsel and imposed a low term
sentence of 16 months in county jail.

Defendant Armando Garza Canchola appeals after a jury found him guilty of two counts of assault, one count of assault on a peace officer, and one count of active participation in a criminal street gang. The jury found true allegations that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury and allegations that he committed the assault on a peace officer to benefit a criminal street gang. The trial court found true an allegation that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction and an allegation that defendant had two prior “strike” convictions. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 40 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence that defendant had previously been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and that the evidentiary ruling violated his due process rights.

Defendant Doreman Hall was convicted by jury trial of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)). The jury also found true allegations that defendant had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and as to count 2, that defendant had previously been convicted of violating section 288, subdivision (c)(1). Defendant was sentenced to a prison term.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his Wheeler/Batson motion because the prosecutor improperly exercised a peremptory challenge based on gender bias. We conclude that defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review because his challenge to the prosecutor’s action did not articulate gender as its basis but was based on race. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.

Howard Dorne, M.D., appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court denied his motion to vacate an arbitration award against him and granted a motion to confirm in favor of his employer, a medical group called Vascular and Interventional Specialists of Orange County (VISOC). Dorne sued VISOC for breach of his employment contract and Labor Code violations after he left the group on grounds of disability. The matter went to arbitration, and the arbitrator found in favor of VISOC on all Dorne’s claims.
Dorne moved in the trial court to vacate the award, and the court denied the motion. It entered judgment for VISOC pursuant to the arbitrator’s award, and Dorne appeals from the judgment entered after this order. He also appeals the subsequent award to VISOC for attorney fees incurred to oppose his motion to vacate the award. The two appeals have been consolidated.
We affirm the trial court’s award of post-arbitration fees to VISOC.