CA Unpub Decisions

Twenty years after the dissolution of her marriage, appellant Jeanne F. Jones petitioned for payment of arrearages stretching back over the prior two decades. The trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice because Jeanne could not credibly show any amounts due that were not paid. We affirm.

A jury convicted Elizabeth J. Puckett of transportation of heroine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 1); possession of heroin for sale (§ 11351; count 2); and importing methamphetamine into the state (§ 11379, subd. (a); count 3).
The court deemed the sentence for count 1 to be the base term, with sentences for counts 2 and 3 to be served concurrently. The court suspended imposition of the sentence and granted Puckett formal probation with terms and conditions. The court imposed a lab analysis fee under section 11372.5 in the amount of $615, consisting of $50 for each conviction, $435 in penalty assessments, and $30 for a state surcharge. The court also levied a drug program fee in the amount of $205 under section 11372.7, comprised of a $50 base fine, penalty assessments of $145, and a $10 state surcharge.

On the night of January 3, 2010, defendant D’Andre Leon Monroe, then 18 years old, fired a gun from a car into an inhabited dwelling, killing 15-year-old Aliyah (“Lele”) Smith. Defendant appeals following conviction of (1) second degree murder and (2) shooting a gun at an inhabited dwelling house. On the murder count, the jury found true an allegation that defendant was armed with a firearm, personally used a firearm, and personally used and discharged a firearm causing death.

K.V. (mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to B.S., a child coming under the juvenile court law. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) We conclude, among other things, that 1) the juvenile court did not err by rejecting mother’s claim that the beneficial parental relationship exception to the termination of her parental rights applied, and 2) mother has not shown that the significant sibling relationship exception applied. We affirm.

A jury found Mark Anthony Perez guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) (count 1), a felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2), and a felon in possession of ammunition (ibid.) (count 4).
The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Perez on 36 months’ formal probation on various terms and conditions, including that he serve 365 days in the county jail. We conditionally reverse for a new Pitchess hearing. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) In all other respects, we affirm.

Joshua Moore appeals following his admitted probation violation, revocation hearing and sentencing. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.

Blake Edward Nielsen appeals from a judgment and post-judgment order denying him recovery for his attorney fees and costs in a “lemon law” action commenced under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) (the Act). He contends the court erred in finding that he was not the prevailing party under the Act; respondent’s settlement offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 was invalid due to ambiguity and uncertainty; and the court erred in finding that his recovery at trial was less than the amount of the settlement offer. We will affirm.

T.L., a minor, appeals from a dispositional order. He challenges several technology-related probation conditions and a curfew condition under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) and constitutional principles of vagueness and overbreadth. We modify T.L.’s probation conditions and affirm as modified.

Defendant A.M. appeals from the San Francisco Superior Court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The contested evidence, a knife, was found on A.M.’s person when he was detained and handcuffed after he approached an officer during a traffic stop involving a suspected stolen vehicle and indicated the car belonged to him. A.M. argues the court erred in concluding a valid detention and arrest occurred. Seeing no error, we affirm.

Defendant Melinda Elizabeth Thomas was charged with possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm and—with two co-defendants— cultivation of and possessing marijuana for sale. Thomas entered a no contest plea to the felony methamphetamine count, and the co-defendants pled to misdemeanors. With advice of counsel, Thomas executed a rights waiver. The trial court found her plea to be knowing and voluntary, advised her that the co-defendants would receive benefits, but did not secure an Ibarra waiver. Before sentencing, Thomas sought to withdraw her plea, but her newly-appointed counsel found no lawful basis for the motion. Thomas was sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement. On appeal, Thomas contends her plea was involuntary, appointed counsel was ineffective, and sentencing counsel had a conflict. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Sukhjinder Kaur and Randeep Singh (Plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court’s grant of an unopposed motion for summary judgment filed by Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Interbay Funding, LLC, Randolph Hawkins, and IB Property Holdings, LLC (Defendants). Because Plaintiffs fail to challenge one of the grounds on which the trial court granted the motion, we shall affirm.

Defendant Richard Graham III was convicted by jury of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and the trial court found he had sustained a prior “strike” conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12). The court imposed a four-year prison sentence, and Graham appealed. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel also informed Graham of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Graham did not file one. We have reviewed the record, find no issues that require briefing, and therefore affirm.

A jury convicted appellant Jovany Shawnte Portades of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (d)). The trial court found that appellant had one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and sentenced him to seven years in state prison. Appellant contends the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing argument by referring to facts not in evidence. We affirm.

This criminal prosecution is the result of multiple charges brought against three codefendants, including Kenneth Ray Heinze (Heinze or appellant), in connection with an October 2012 home invasion robbery. On appeal, Heinze argues that his conviction for the attempted robbery of Donald M.—one of the victims present at the home during the incident—is not supported by the evidence. Heinze further claims that his sentence should be reviewed due to certain changes to the statutes on which his multiple firearm enhancements were based, a contention with which the Attorney General agrees.