Filed 10/30/26 P. v. Mildenberger CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, B341406
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA084890)
v.
REDACTED OPINION
JULIA MARIE MILDENBERGER, FOR PUBLIC VIEW*
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Lisa Strassner, Judge. Reversed in part and affirmed in
part.
Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
* This case involves confidential medical information.
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rules 8.45, 8.46,
and 8.47, we have concurrently filed public (redacted) and
sealed (unredacted) versions of this opinion. We hereby order
the unredacted version of this opinion sealed.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
For several years, Julia Mildenberger ran a licensed animal
rescue facility—Southern California Cat Adoption Tails—on her
two-acre property in Los Angeles County. In April 2022, Maria
Powell, a volunteer who lived with Mildenberger at the facility,
contacted the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and
Control (Animal Control). Powell reported that conditions at the
facility were unsanitary and that many animals were sick. She
provided Animal Control with photographs of ill, emaciated animals
at the facility, as well as the bodies of two deceased cats she had
discovered on the property. In October 2022, Animal Control
executed a search warrant at Mildenberger’s facility. Officers
found approximately 200 cats and dozens of dogs. Most of the cats
were suffering from upper respiratory infections or other ailments.
Animal Control took many of the animals into custody, and the
district attorney filed criminal charges against Mildenberger.
A jury convicted Mildenberger of nine felony counts of
animal cruelty (Pen. Code1, § 597, subd. (b)) and four counts of
misdemeanor failure to care for an animal (§ 597.1, subd. (a)).
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted
Mildenberger three years of probation, subject to several conditions.
These conditions included that Mildenberger “[s]upport dependents
1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
as directed by the probation officer” and “take all psychotropic
medication as prescribed.”
Mildenberger now asks us to reverse two of her
misdemeanor convictions. She contends the court erred in
denying her section 1118.1 motion for a judgment of acquittal
because insufficient evidence supports that she acted with
criminal negligence in failing to provide proper care for five-week-
old puppies (count 12) and failing to obtain adequate medical care
for the 70 percent of outdoor cats on the property suffering from
upper respiratory infections (count 13).2 Mildenberger further
contends that the probation conditions requiring her to support
dependents and take medication are unconstitutionally vague and
overbroad, and that the court abused its discretion in imposing the
conditions.
We agree with Mildenberger’s challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence underlying the count 12 conviction because nothing in
the record supports that Mildenberger left the puppies in dangerous
conditions overnight, as the Attorney General argues. But we reject
Mildenberger’s remaining contentions: Substantial evidence—
including testimony from a veterinarian and Mildenberger herself—
supports the count 13 conviction. Mildenberger forfeited her
2 In her opening brief, Mildenberger states that she
is “challenging the sufficiency of the evidence . . . support[ing]
[her] conviction[ ] in count[ ] 7,” but goes on to state that
“[t]he focus of [her] claim” is a challenge to counts 12 and 13.
And Mildenberger offers no argument or authority supporting
her challenge to the conviction on count 7. We therefore deem any
such challenge forfeited. (See City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012)
211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286–287 [“[i]n order to demonstrate error,
an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent
argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record”].)
3
challenges to the “support dependents” condition by failing to
raise them before the trial court. And because we construe the
medication condition as requiring Mildenberger to take only those
medications expressly identified in a psychological report the
defense submitted at sentencing, we conclude the condition passes
constitutional muster.
Accordingly, we reverse the count 12 conviction, affirm the
count 13 conviction and the challenged probation conditions, and
remand this case for a full resentencing.
FACTUAL SUMMARY AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
We summarize only the facts and procedural history relevant
to our resolution of this appeal.
A. Trial Proceedings
In August 2024, the district attorney filed the operative
first amended information charging Mildenberger with 13 counts:
(1) felony cruelty to an animal (§ 597, subd. (b)) (counts 1 through 6,
8–9, 11), and (2) misdemeanor failure to care for an animal (§ 597.1,
subd. (a)) (counts 7, 10, 12-13).
At trial, the prosecution argued that Mildenberger had
neglected the animals at her facility, including by failing to treat
upper respiratory infections and other potentially fatal illnesses
in dozens of the cats. In support, the prosecution presented Animal
Control documentation reflecting complaints about the conditions
and health of the animals at Mildenberger’s facility dating back
to 2013, documentation supporting that Mildenberger frequently
denied Animal Control access to the facility, evidence that
Mildenberger possessed more than $60,000 in “contributions,
gifts, [and] grants” for the facility that could have been used to
secure medical care for the animals (capitalization omitted), and
photographs of the unsanitary conditions at the facility—including
4
images of deceased cats and litterboxes full of feces. In addition,
the prosecution offered testimony from six witnesses: Powell, two
veterinarians, and three Animal Control officers.
With respect to Mildenberger’s alleged failure to care
for the puppies (count 12), three witnesses—Dr. Bijula Yusin,
Corporal Bethany Estes, and Powell, the volunteer who reported
Mildenberger to Animal Control—provided pertinent testimony.
Dr. Yusin, a forensic veterinarian for Animal Control, testified that,
during the execution of the search warrant, she discovered “a group
of eight really young puppies in one of the [outdoor] back kennels[,]
and they did not have a mom.” The puppies were in an “aluminum
metal trough” with “some wood shavings” in the bottom. There
was a plastic doghouse, a water bowl, and bowl of hard kibble inside
the trough. The water bowl had “no water,” and instead contained
some “wet wood shavings.” Dr. Yusin opined that these conditions
were dangerous for the puppies because “the night before the
search warrant, it was 42 degrees,” the metal trough would conduct
heat away from the puppies’ bodies, and “[y]oung puppies without
a mom cannot maintain their body temperature . . . [or] . . .
shiver . . . , so they can die of hypothermia.” Dr. Yusin further
opined that “puppies like these need . . . softened kibble,” and that
if the puppies “g[ot] extra hungry they w[ould] ingest the wood
shavings and [that] c[ould] actually perforate their intestines.”
Notwithstanding these conditions, Dr. Yusin testified that the
puppies “seemed okay” when she observed them. She further
explained: “By the time I got to these puppies . . . it was a little bit
later, 11:00 [a.m.] or something, so it was getting warmer.” And in
the only photographs of the puppies introduced at trial, they appear
alert and healthy.
Corporal Estes, the investigating officer on the case, provided
similar testimony describing the conditions in which Animal
5
Control discovered the puppies: “In [one of the] kennel[s] we found
a large water trough that is sometimes used for horses[,] and it is
completely metal. On the inside were—I’m not sure if they were
wood chips used for gerbils or hamsters or even sometimes in horse
pens. They put shavings down and that’s what was on the ground.
There was a small doghouse on the inside, and there were two
containers: One with what was supposed to be water, and the other
one had food. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [T]he further up top was the food
container. [The other container] had wet shavings inside of it.
It was supposed to be water but there was little to no water inside
of [it.]” Corporal Estes, however, did not opine on whether the
conditions presented a danger to the puppies.
Finally, although Powell did not testify concerning the eight
puppies specifically, she testified that Mildenberger “sometimes . . .
would keep the puppies that [the facility] had” in an enclosed space
in the kitchen to prevent them from “wander[ing] all over.”
With respect to Mildenberger’s alleged failure to care for the
70 percent of outdoor cats exhibiting upper respiratory infections
(count 13), Sergeant Rachel Montez Kemp, Officer Tony Apodaca,
Corporal Estes, and Dr. Yusin provided the most pertinent
testimony. Sergeant Kemp, an officer with Animal Control,
testified that she inspected Mildenberger’s property in June 2021
and noticed “thin and sickly cats . . . throughout the facility.” She
further testified that she instructed Mildenberger to take all of
the cats to a veterinarian, but Mildenberger insisted “it was too
expensive.” Sergeant Kemp told Mildenberger to “take a few [cats]
at a time—or clusters of them at one time to alleviate some of the
cost.”
Officer Apodaca, another Animal Control officer, testified
that he inspected the facility in February 2022, and “it looked like
a wreck.” “The facility had [an] excess of feces in the—the litter
6
boxes, and it appeared they had quite a few sick cats.” During the
inspection, Officer Apodaca discovered a deceased cat at the facility,
in Mildenberger’s presence. “[I]t appeared to [Officer Apodaca]
that [the cat] had been deceased for a while.” Mildenberger signed
the deceased cat over to Animal Control.
Corporal Estes testified that, when Animal Control executed
the search warrant in October 2022, some of the outdoor cats
appeared less emaciated and healthier than during the June 2021
inspection of the facility. But Corporal Estes “could still see the
[cats had] goopy eyes,” and she “could audibly . . . hear them
sneezing.” When Corporal Estes asked Mildenberger whether
she had taken the animals to a veterinarian, “[s]he said, no.”
Mildenberger explained that she was self-diagnosing and
medicating the cats.
Finally, Dr. Yusin testified that “70 percent” of the outdoor
cats at the facility “had some kind of upper respiratory illness.”
She further testified that cats with such infections generally exhibit
symptoms, including discharge from their eyes or nose and sneezes
that produce “big globs of [mucus].” Dr. Yusin opined that if a cat’s
upper respiratory infection “doesn’t go away in a couple of weeks,
then a trip to the vet is necessary” because “[i]n some cases[, the
infection] can lead to pneumonia, which is inflammation of the
lungs[,] and the cat may even die.” In addition, Dr. Yusin testified
that Animal Control found “at least a hundred” medications,
including antibiotics intended for fish, in Mildenberger’s kitchen
during the execution of the search warrant. But “most of them were
expired and unopened.” Dr. Yusin further opined that attempting
to medicate an animal without a veterinarian’s guidance can be
dangerous and “may . . . even . . . poison[ ] the animal.”
At the close of the prosecution’s evidence, the defense moved
for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to section 1118.1, arguing the
7
prosecution had failed to prove that Mildenberger had acted with
criminal negligence. The court denied the motion.
Mildenberger presented testimony from three witnesses—
Mildenberger herself, Dr. Diane Cosko, and two former volunteers
at the facility—in support of her theory that the facility was
“overrun” during the Covid-19 pandemic, and that Mildenberger
had not acted with criminal negligence because “she was doing the
best that she could.”
Mildenberger testified that, after the pandemic, things were
“very difficult.” She explained: “[M]y granddaughter was living
with me at the time. She had another friend that was pretty much
hundred percent volunteer. The three of us tried to take care of all
of the animals. A lot of animals were dumped on the property.”
Although she was “overwhelmed,” Mildenberger did not surrender
any of the animals because “Animal Control was closed down,” and
“[she knew] that they would have . . . euthanized all [her] cats.”
Mildenberger further testified that she recognized the symptoms
of upper respiratory infections in cats—including “a snotty nose,”
“runny, goopy eyes,” and “sneez[ing]”—and that she attempted to
treat many of the cats herself. Finally, Mildenberger testified that
she had allowed Powell to live at the facility on the condition that
Powell assist with caring for the animals. But Powell “lived by
her own set of rules,” did not hold up her end of the bargain, and
refused Mildenberger’s repeated requests that she move out of the
facility.
Dr. Cosko, a veterinarian and animal law attorney, opined
that cats often hide their illnesses, and that some cats experience
chronic, recurring upper respiratory infections. And the two
former volunteers described both Mildenberger and the facility
in positive terms: One volunteer testified the facility was “a great
8
environment.” The other testified that Mildenberger was “a very
kind person” who “love[d] the animals.”
In closing, the prosecutor urged the jury to reject
Mildenberger’s defense: “No one else had control over what was
going on in that property, only [Mildenberger] did. She chose not
to do anything about the animals that were slowly dying. That is
criminal negligence.”
The jury convicted Mildenberger on all counts.
B. Sentencing Proceedings
In advance of the October 2024 sentencing hearing, defense
counsel filed (1) a letter Mildenberger had drafted to the judge,
and (2) a report prepared by a licensed clinical psychologist
who had evaluated Mildenberger’s mental health.3 In the letter,
Mildenberger asked the court for “mercy” and a probationary
sentence, notwithstanding that she had violated the terms of her
release on her own recognizance pending trial by continuing to
assist with animal adoptions. Mildenberger explained, in pertinent
part: “I became deeply depressed at the closing of [my animal]
rescue [facility] and was diagnosed with depression. I s[ought]
help from a psychiatrist and therapist[.] I was and continue to
take anti-depression and anti[-]anxiety medication. [¶] Since my
case began in October 2022[,] I have been desperate to find a way
to fill my days. I did not feel comfortable because I never knew
from one month to the next when my trial would begin. I made
a poor decision to put cats [that] were abandoned with me [up] for
adoption through the PetSmart adoption program, a decision that
I deeply regret and I apologize to the court for.”
3 We take judicial notice of the letter and report on our own
motion. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
9
The licensed psychologist’s report provided, in pertinent part:
“[REDACTED].”
At the sentencing hearing, the court suspended imposition
of sentence on all counts and granted Mildenberger two years of
formal probation and one year of summary probation. The court
also imposed probation conditions, including that Mildenberger:
“serve outpatient treatment in . . . mental health counseling to treat
behavioral or conduct disorders,” “take all psychotropic medication
as prescribed,” and “[s]upport dependents as directed by the
probation officer.” Mildenberger did not object to the conditions.
The court made the following comments pertinent to the
mental health counseling and psychotropic medication-related
probation conditions: “The court has reviewed [Mildenberger’s
letter and the clinical psychologist’s report] . . . . So, here’s the
situation. [¶] Ms. Mildenberger, while I do appreciate your letter,
I’ve had a hard time with you, in terms of evaluating you, your
entire conduct throughout the trial, your testimony[,] which I
did feel was not truthful, and the jury found that to be the case
as well—with any remorse that you’ve had. . . . [¶] I understand
that you have been diagnosed with depression, that may have had
something to do, obviously, with your husband being deceased, and
I’m sorry about that. [¶] You were looking for a way to fill your
days when your husband passed away, and you took up this rescue.
[¶] . . . [¶] . . . [F]rom before I even read [the psychologist’s report]
and your own letter to this court, I underst[ood] there is some
mental illness going on here. There’s no question about that.
And that needs to be addressed. And it will be addressed with
this court. And you will be monitored by this court for therapy
because—and counseling because you need it. [¶] . . . [¶] . . .
[Y]ou are also going to be required to do mental health counseling
to treat behavior and conduct disorders [REDACTED.] I do think
10
that there is something deeper than depression.” The court did not
explain its reasons for imposing the “support dependents” condition.
Mildenberger timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
A. Mildenberger’s Challenges to the Convictions on
Counts 12 and 13
1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
Counts 12 and 13 of the amended information charged
Mildenberger with violating section 597.1, subdivision (a)(1).
That section “provides that an owner or keeper of an animal who
permits the animal to be without proper care and attention is guilty
of a misdemeanor.” (Bakos v. Roach (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 390,
396–397; see § 597.1, subd. (a)(1).)
To prove a violation of section 597.1, subdivision (a)(1), the
prosecution must establish that the defendant acted with criminal
negligence—meaning the defendant (1) acted in a way that created
a high risk of death or great bodily injury, and (2) a reasonable
person would have known that acting in that way would create
such a risk. (See People v. Speegle (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1405,
1414, fn. 7 [“[c]riminal negligence requires conduct more egregious
than mere civil negligence; a defendant’s dereliction must be such
a gross departure from the reasonably prudent that it amounts
to reckless indifference with actual or imputed knowledge of the
consequences”]; see also CALCRIM No. 253.)
Here, Mildenberger contends the trial court erred by denying
her section 1118.1 motion for a judgment of acquittal because the
prosecution did not present sufficient evidence in its case in chief
that Mildenberger acted with criminal negligence in failing to care
for the eight puppies (count 12) and the many outdoor cats on her
property (count 13). She further contends the evidence that she
11
acted with criminal negligence remained insufficient at the close of
all evidence.
“In ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant
to section 1118.1, a trial court applies the same standard an
appellate court applies in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
to support a conviction.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158,
1212-1213.) “When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence, we ask ‘ “whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” ’ [Citations.] Because the sufficiency of the
evidence is ultimately a legal question, we must examine the record
independently for ‘ “substantial evidence—that is, evidence which
is reasonable, credible, and of solid value” ’ that would support a
finding beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]” (People v. Banks
(2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 804.)
2. Insufficient Evidence Supports
Mildenberger’s Conviction on Count 12
We agree with Mildenberger that insufficient evidence
supports her conviction on count 12 for failure to provide proper
care for the eight puppies.
The Attorney General contends that “[b]ased on Dr. Yusin’s
testimony, reasonable inferences were that [Mildenberger] acted
in [a] reckless manner that put the puppies at high risk of death
or great bodily injury due to hypothermia, lack of water and food,
and possible injury from ingesting wood shavings.” But these
inferences are reasonable only if one assumes that Mildenberger
left the puppies in the trough overnight or for an otherwise
extended period. And the record contains no evidence supporting
such an assumption. (See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690,
735 [“ ‘speculation is not evidence, less still substantial evidence’ ”].)
12
Indeed, the puppies’ apparent health at the time Animal
Control executed the search warrant supports precisely the
opposite conclusion: that Mildenberger did not leave the puppies
in dangerously cold conditions or without appropriate food and
water for an extended period. Powell’s testimony that Mildenberger
sometimes would house puppies in an enclosed space inside her
kitchen further supports this conclusion.
Accordingly, Mildenberger’s conviction on count 12 is
reversed, and the court is directed to enter a judgment of acquittal
on that count. (See People v. Eroshevich (2014) 60 Cal.4th 583,
591 [“the defendant may not be retried if the judgment is reversed
because, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient to support
a conviction”].)
3. Sufficient Evidence Supports Mildenberger’s
Conviction on Count 13
We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to count 13.
Mildenberger contends that “any finding by the jury that [she]
acted with criminal negligence” by failing to provide adequate care
for the outdoor cats is “speculative” because (1) some of the cats
were healthy, and (2) Corporal Estes’s testimony and photographs
admitted at trial “demonstrated that the overall condition of the
[cat-related areas of the facility] looked better than they did during
Animal Control’s inspection of the property in 2021.”
But “ ‘[i]f the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of
fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply
because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with
a contrary finding. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1
Cal.5th 838, 890.) And here, Mildenberger ignores the substantial
evidence supporting that she failed to provide proper medical care
for the outdoor cats’ upper respiratory infections, despite knowing
that such failure could prove fatal to the cats: Sergeant Kemp
13
testified that, in June 2021, she pointed out the many sick
cats to Mildenberger and instructed her to take all of them to a
veterinarian. Officer Apodaca testified that, during a February
2021 inspection of the facility, he discovered a deceased cat
in Mildenberger’s presence. Mildenberger testified that she
recognized the symptoms of upper respiratory infections in cats.
Corporal Estes testified that many of the cats were exhibiting
those symptoms when Animal Control executed the search warrant
in October 2022. Finally, Dr. Yusin testified that she observed that
70 percent of the outdoor cats had some type of upper respiratory
infection, which could be fatal if left untreated.
We therefore conclude that sufficient evidence supports that
Mildenberger acted with criminal negligence as to the outdoor cats,
and we reject her challenge to her conviction on count 13.
B. Mildenberger’s Challenges to the Probation
Conditions Fail
We likewise reject Mildenberger’s challenges to the probation
conditions requiring her to “support dependents as directed by
the probation officer” and “take all psychotropic medication as
prescribed.”
Mildenberger contends the “support dependents” condition is
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to her “because
[the condition] is neither related to the offenses in this case, nor
related to probationary goals.”4 On this same basis, Mildenberger
argues the condition constitutes an abuse of discretion under People
v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), superseded on another ground
4 In her reply brief, Mildenberger characterizes her
challenges to both probation conditions as facial constitutional
challenges. But she fails to make any arguments in support of
a facial challenge to the “support dependents” condition.
14
as stated in People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 290–291. (See
Lent, supra, at p. 486 [a trial court abuses its “broad discretion”
in imposing a probation condition only if the condition “ ‘(1) has
no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted,
(2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires
or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future
criminality’ ”].) Mildenberger, however, forfeited these challenges
to the “support dependents” condition by failing to raise them
before the trial court. (See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875,
886 (Sheena K.) [forfeiture rule applies to a constitutional challenge
to a probation condition, where the challenge does not present a
pure question of law]; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234–238
[failure to object to a probation condition on Lent grounds forfeits
the claim].) Accordingly, we affirm the “support dependents”
condition.
Mildenberger further contends the medication condition is
unconstitutionally overbroad—both facially and as applied—and
that the condition constitutes an abuse of discretion under Lent.
By failing to object to the condition below, Mildenberger forfeited
all but her facial constitutional challenge to the condition. (See
Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 886.) We agree with the parties
that the condition is facially overbroad as presently drafted because
it purports to “require [Mildenberger] to take all psychotropic
medications prescribed by a doctor, regardless of whether the
medications [are] for a mental disorder related to [her] offenses
or to her reform and rehabilitation.” (See People v. Petty (2013)
213 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1413, 1420 [striking a probation condition
requiring the defendant to “ ‘comply with all directions of [his]
mental health worker, including taking medications as directed’ ”
because, among other defects, the order was “so broad that it
could cover any form of medication, whether or not related to
15
[the] defendant’s mental health or . . . criminality”].) We therefore
modify the condition to require Mildenberger to take only those
psychotropic medications expressly identified in the psychologist’s
report as [REDACTED]. (See, e.g., In re Luis F. (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 176, 192 [narrowing probation condition requiring
juvenile offender to take certain medications to allow the condition
“to pass constitutional muster”].)
16
DISPOSITION
The conviction on count 12 is reversed. The conviction
on count 13 is affirmed. The probation condition requiring
Mildenberger to “support dependents as directed by the probation
officer” is affirmed. The probation condition requiring Mildenberger
to “take all psychotropic medication as prescribed” is modified to
require only that Mildenberger take [REDACTED], as long as her
doctor prescribes those medications. The matter is remanded for
a full resentencing, consistent with this opinion.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:
BENDIX, J.
M. KIM, J.
17