CA Unpub Decisions

Ten plaintiffs, all minors, sued defendants First Lutheran Church, Latonya Dollison, and Victoria Leggette, alleging they sustained personal injuries while attending First Lutheran’s preschool. The cases were consolidated for purposes of discovery, and all plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel, Owen, Patterson & Owen, LLP (OP&O). This appeal concerns a $6,500 discovery sanctions order against OP&O. We conclude that the matter properly is before us under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(12),[1] and affirm the order of the trial court because no abuse of discretion is evident from the record. Defendants’ motion for sanctions is denied.

Clarence R.and Erica C.(collectively, the de facto parents)areformer foster parents and de facto parentsoftwo-year-oldJasmin M.Clarence R. appeals from the juvenile court’sorder denying his petition for modification (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388),[1]in which hehad requested return of Jasmin to his care. Although his briefing on appeal is somewhat unclear, it appears heessentially contends that his and Erica C.’s constitutional rights were violated when the juvenile court removed Jasmin from their care without a hearing and, in addition,that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his section 388 petition without a hearing. We conclude (1) the de facto parents have waived the right to challenge Jasmin’s removal by failing to appeal the March 2016 removal order, and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion when it deniedClarence R.’s section 388 petition without a hearing. We shall therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Defendant Charles Harden Brooks appeals from an order finding him in violation of the terms of his parole.Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel was unable to find any arguable issues for reversal on appeal and asking this court to independently review the record for error. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.We have reviewed the entire record and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues that warrant further briefing.

G.D.(Mother), mother of two-year-old Mya O.,appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights and ordering adoption as the permanent plan, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Mother contends these orders must be reversed because the court’s finding that she failed to establish the applicability of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption was not supported by substantial evidence. We shall affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

Defendant Ryan R. Atkins appeals from the imposition of an aggregate sentence of three years and eight months in state prison for the felony offenses of stalking(Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)[1]) (Case No. CR937618), and stalking with a prior felony stalking conviction (§ 646.9, subds. (a), (c)(2)) (Case No. CR940634), which offenses were committed against the same victim. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his requests to reinstate probation in case number CR937618 and grant probation in case number CR940634. We affirm.

We affirm in part and reverse in part. We reverse fourof the money laundering convictions based on insufficient evidence. We reverse the identity theft convictions because there is no evidence Lee used his victims’ personal identifying information for an unlawful purpose without their consent. We reverse two elder theft convictions because the Attorney General concedes there was insufficient evidence to support them. We conclude Lee should not have to pay restitution to one set of victims, and the trial court should amend the judgment to correct the amounts of certain fees. In all other respects, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Michael Max Valadez of attempted murder (count one; Pen. Code §§187, 664) and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (count two; Pen. Code § 246), and found true allegations that he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 12022.53, subd. (d)) and committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code § 186.22, subds. (b)(1)(C) and (b)(4)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 30 years to life (five years for the attempted murder charge, a concurrent five-year term for shooting at an inhabited building, a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement on count one, and a concurrent 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement on count two).
Defendant contends the trial court erred by (1) finding a witness was unavailable, which allowed for the admission of the witness’s preliminary hearing testimony and p

Plaintiff Joanna Pfeister appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court imposed a terminating sanction for discovery abuses and noncompliance with court orders. She contends that the judgment must be reversed because the terminating sanction flowed directly from an order compelling further responses which was made without jurisdiction as the motion to compel was untimely. We affirm.

C.A. (Mother) and I.L. (Father) appeal from the judgment terminating parental rights to their now two-year-old son, C.L. Father contends the juvenile court erred in summarily denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] modification petition. Both parents maintain the court should have applied the “parental benefit exception” to adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We find no errors and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Jose Roberto Cisneros of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a))[1] and found true that a nonaccomplice was present during the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)).[2] Defendant admitted a prior serious felony conviction for which he had served a prison term. (§§ 667, 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12.) After considering the probation officer’s report, the court denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior strike and sentenced him to prison for 13 years.
Defendant appealed the judgment and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against defendant, but advised he was unable to find an issue to argue on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was given an opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, but he did not do so.

Tae Jin Kim (Appellant) appeals from a judgment under which he is liable to pay unpaid rent on a house or to indemnify another party to the extent that party makes the payment. We conclude that Appellant, who provided no legal authority or record citations in his appellate brief, has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating error. We therefore affirm.

John Wade Riddle, Jr. appeals from a conviction for receiving stolen property after he entered a no contest plea to the charge pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement. Appellate counsel failed to identify any arguable issues after reviewing the record. We agree there are no arguable issues in the case and affirm the judgment.

Alan D. Stephenson was found guilty of 12 counts of child molestation, one count of possessing child pornography and one count of using a child to produce pornography; he received an enhanced sentence consisting of 12 consecutive indeterminate terms of 50 years to life plus a determinate term of 60 years. On appeal, he argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions on counts 1 and 6, which required proof of intercourse occurring during specific time frames; (2) Penal Code section 654 should have been applied to stay the sentence on count 9; (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Stephenson’s motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to reduce the sentence by striking a prior conviction allegation; (4) the trial court should have applied a rule allowing only one life term for each of the two victims; and (5) the sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate to the crimes.
We will affirm the judgment.

On July 16, 2016, the court sentenced defendant to 15 years in prison as follows: the upper term of five years for count 1, plus 10 years consecutive for the firearm enhancement. The court stayed the sentence for count 2 pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
This appeal followed.