CA Unpub Decisions

M.P. (mother) seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now three-year-old daughter, Ariel. Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding it would be detrimental to return Ariel to her custody. We deny the petition.

Defendant Albert Lopez contends on appeal that (1) the trial court erred in imposing penalty assessments attached to a criminal laboratory analysis fee (lab fee) and a drug program fee (program fee), and (2) the order prohibiting him from owning or possessing a concealable weapon is unauthorized. We strike the concealable weapon prohibition, order the abstract of judgment amended in two regards, and affirm as so modified.

This case arose when two sixth grade girls complained that a middle school special education teacher inappropriately touched them. The alleged touchings consisted of the teacher touching the girls’ shoulders to redirect their attention to their schoolwork, placing his hand over their hands to operate a computer mouse, and touching one of the girl’s breast. The teacher admitted touching each girl on the shoulder and on the hand, but denied touching the girl’s breast. The school district believed the girls’ version of events, determined all of the touchings were inappropriate, and dismissed the teacher for immoral conduct pursuant to Education Code section 44932, subdivision (a)(1).

Jaubrae Dixon, Ladarieus Jones, and Laderrick Sutton were jointly prosecuted on charges arising from a shooting incident. Each was convicted of active participation in a criminal street gang and unlawful firearm possession. Dixon and Sutton were also found guilty of committing assault with a firearm. Jones was sentenced to a total of five years in prison. Dixon and Sutton received aggregate prison terms of 19 years and 18 years, respectively.
The claims on appeal allege instructional error and insufficiency of the evidence. Dixon, who was 17 years old at the time of the offenses, makes an additional claim of sentencing error and also argues for retroactive application of the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57). We affirm the judgments against Jones and Sutton in full. As to Dixon, we modify the judgment to strike an erroneously imposed enhancement and, as so modified, affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Alfredo Hernandez Sosa, Jr., of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and vandalism (count 2; § 594, subd. (a)(2), (3)). Thereafter, defendant admitted allegations he had suffered two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (e)(1)), two prior serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to 35 years of incarceration. The court stayed imposition of sentence on the prior prison term enhancements.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying his request to represent himself. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta).) The judgment is reversed.

After a 20-year marriage, Dominic and Bibian Ehirim separated in 2009, and appellant Dominic petitioned for divorce in 2012. The family court granted a judgment of dissolution, granted respondent Bibian primary physical custody of the parties’ minor daughter, ordered Dominic to pay child support from January 2015 forward, ordered no spousal support for either party, and characterized and divided property between the parties. In a separate child support case initiated by the San Bernardino County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), a child support commissioner ordered Dominic to pay child support for an earlier period (September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014).

D.W., Sr. (Father) appeals from a juvenile court order summarily denying his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 requesting that the court modify its placement order and to place his son, D.W., Jr. (Minor, born 2006) in his care instead of a group home. Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion and denied him due process by denying the petition without a hearing. We affirm.

Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, Cleveland National Forest Foundation, and Save our Forest and Ranch Lands (collectively appellants) appeal a judgment denying their petition for writ of mandate. The trial court determined the director of San Diego County's Planning & Development Services department (director) did not abuse his discretion in classifying a use of private property, known as Covert Canyon, LLC (Covert Canyon or the property), for firearms and associated training activities for military and law enforcement agencies as a Law Enforcement Services use type pursuant to the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance (SDCZO), section 1346.

On February 1, 2015, defendant Frank Evans was involved in a heated family argument during a Super Bowl party. Defendant was convicted of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422; count two), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); counts three & four), being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count five), having two prior strikes (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)), having two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), having a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and personal use of a firearm as to counts two through four (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).

Defendant William Coats appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126) petition for resentencing. He contends: 1) the trial court erred in making factual findings beyond those established in the nature or basis of his current convictions; 2) eligibility for resentencing is subject to the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard; and 3) the court’s findings denied his right to a jury trial. We affirm.

In June 2016, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition identifying the children E.E., then 13, and K.S., then three. E.E.’s father was not named in the petition. K.S.’s father Kevin S. was named in the petition and is referred to as father in this opinion.
It is undisputed that mother suffers from diabetes and gastroparesis, a condition causing excessive vomiting. Mother, who was 31 years old at the time of the petition, was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 13. In addition to the gastroparesis, which caused mother tremendous pain, she suffered from nephropathy and retinopathy, additional complications of diabetes. Mother acknowledged that she did not take prescribed medication, but claimed that the medication did not help her.

Appellant Jean Technology, Inc. (Jean Technology) appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer to the second amended complaint filed by respondents Steve Brink, Viviana Garcia, Ana Gonzales, Victoria Gutman, Patty Orellana, Rocio Ramirez, Cecila Reyes and Robert C. Skinner, Jr. (collectively, Respondents). Respondents worked for NYDJ Apparel, LLC (NYDJ), a manufacturer and seller of garments. From April 1, 2011, to October 20, 2014, NYDJ entered into approximately 2,300 contracts with Jean Technology to sew its garments. Jean Technology contends that after it had fully performed its obligations under each contract, Respondents improperly refused to pay Jean Technology’s invoices without discount, knowing Jean Technology would suffer economic losses.

Leslie Rushing (defendant) pled no contest to one count of acquiring or retaining access card information in violation of Penal Code section 484e, subdivision (d), a felony. Her plea was entered in 2012. Defendant was placed on three years of formal probation. In March 2015, following the passage of Proposition 47, defendant filed a petition for recall of her sentence and resentencing as a misdemeanor. The court denied her petition on the ground that Proposition 47 did not apply to section 484e, subdivision (d). We reached the same conclusion on appeal.
The California Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review, but deferred further action pending the Court’s consideration and disposition of a related issue in another case. On August 16, 2017, the Supreme Court transferred defendant’s case to us for reconsideration in light of People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903 (Romanowski).

Appellant, Cedric Dwayne Horace, appeals from a judgment convicting him of three felony counts of injury to a spouse and one count of misdemeanor child abuse. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel advised appellant she filed a Wende brief and that, within 30 days, he may personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he may want to bring to the attention of the court. Appellant has filed no such brief.