CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Darrell C. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying his petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and terminating parental rights to his daughter, S.M. Father, who was adjudged an alleged father at the detention, adjudication and disposition hearings, contends the court erred by failing to make a paternity finding when he first appeared in court more than a year later and filed a form JV-505 request. He further contends the court abused its discretion in thereafter summarily denying his section 388 petition and terminating his parental rights.
We affirm.

N.A. appeals a juvenile court order that he did not qualify for automatic sealing of his juvenile record (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786, subd. (a)) after he tested positive for marijuana. The trial court asked: “[I]f we were to terminate jurisdiction today what do you plan to do to remain drug free, because you can’t casually use drugs?” Appellant responded: “I’m planning on going to the California Conservation Core for the year and just staying sober.” The trial court dismissed the amended petition for loitering and said that it would seal appellant’s record if appellant completed the California Conservation Core program and remained drug free. We affirm.

S.A. appeals an order granting the petition of the Public Guardian of the County of San Luis Obispo (Public Guardian) for reappointment as the conservator of her person. A jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that she continues to be gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.; Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act).) S.A. contends that a special instruction that told the jury that conservatorship ends no more than one year later violates due process by reducing Public Guardian’s burden of proof. We agree the instruction was erroneous, but conclude it was not prejudicial, and affirm.

Appellant Lawrence P. appealed after a jury found him for the second time to be gravely disabled under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). He argues appeal that expert testimony was wrongly admitted under the principles recently announced in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 673, 698-700 (Sanchez) and that the admission of hospital records was erroneous because they did not fall under a valid hearsay exception.
After briefing was complete and the court scheduled oral argument, respondent Public Guardian of Contra Costa County notified us that the trial court ordered Lawrence to be released after a different jury found that Lawrence is not currently gravely disabled. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which Lawrence opposes. In this abbreviated opinion permitted under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Plaintiff and appellant Robert H. Bisno appeals from an order granting a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). The anti-SLAPP motion was filed by defendants and respondents Barry Levine and Ari Schottenstein, who sought to strike specified causes of action from Bisno’s complaint.
Bisno is a licensed attorney who has mostly worked as a real estate developer and consultant. Bisno’s claims center around an alleged oral contract between Bisno and Ryan Ogulnick, under which Ogulnick promised to pay Bisno a percentage of profits from a real estate development project involving real property in Santa Ana (Property).

Defendant Ruben Scott pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378, and admitted a prior conviction under the Three Strikes Law. He was sentenced to 32 months in state prison.
Defendant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying his joint motion to unseal, quash, and traverse a search warrant of his home, and by failing to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. We affirm.

Victor Alfonso Carrillo, a MPLS gang member, appeals his conviction by jury of two counts of domestic battery (counts 1 & 2; Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)) , disturbing the peace by fighting (§ 415, subd. (1)), and attempted second degree robbery with a gang enhancement (§§ 664/211; 186.22, subd. (b)(1) & (2)). The trial court sentenced appellant to seven years state prison. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s out-of-court statement that appellant grabbed her wrist and said “give me [your cell] phone” during the attempted robbery. We affirm. (Evid. Code, § 1240.)

On April 30, 2008, defendant and appellant Chad Richard Wilburn pled guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1). Additionally, he admitted that he committed the offense while released from custody on bail (Pen. Code, § 12022.1) and that he suffered four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In return, the remaining charges were dismissed and defendant was sentenced to the upper term of four years for the substantive offense, plus a consecutive term of two years for the on-bail enhancement, plus consecutive one-year terms for each of the four prior prison terms pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Derrek Trierweiler was arrested after violating temporary restraining orders and made threats to a deputy while in custody. An information was filed charging him with multiple counts, including threatening a public officer (Pen. Code, § 71.) He pled guilty to this count, in exchange for dismissal of the other counts. The trial court granted Trierweiler three years' probation and ordered him to serve 365 days in local custody. The probation conditions required him to, among other things, submit to searches of his computers and recordable media (the electronic search condition) and obtain approval of his residence and employment (the approval condition). On appeal, Trierweiler challenges the electronic search condition as unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), and both conditions as unconstitutionally overbroad. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Matthew James Smith contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to object to admission of evidence. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant Edgar Morelos appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of one count of throwing an object at a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 23110, subd. (b)), and one count of assault on a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 241, subd. (c)). His counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

A jury convicted appellant Santiago Ibarra of attempted voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 192, subd. (a)) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and a personal use of a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) with respect to each offense.
On November 20, 2015, the court sentenced Ibarra to an aggregate prison term of 20 years two months; a term of five years six months on his attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction, a 10-year arming enhancement in that count, a three-year bodily injury enhancement, a stayed term on his assault conviction, and an aggregate, consecutive term of one year eight months on an unrelated case from Riverside County. The court also ordered Ibarra to pay $21,840 in victim restitution.

Appointed counsel for defendant Raul John Grijalva asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. We find no arguable issues on appeal.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

A jury found Randall Goodlett guilty of one count of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211; further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) In bifurcated proceedings, the court found true the following allegations: defendant committed the offense while out on bail (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)); and defendant had one prison prior (§ 677.5, subd. (a)), one serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
After closing argument and while the jury was deliberating, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on what she contended was improper rebuttal argument by the prosecutor. Incorrectly believing that defense counsel could not bring such a motion without the express agreement of defendant personally — which defendant did not provide — the trial court declined to rule on the motion.