CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Franchune Dyuel Epps and her codefendants, Brooke Rottiers and Omar Hutchinson,[1] were all charged in an information with two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) (undesignated statutory references will be to the Penal Code)) for the murders of Milton Chavez and Marvin Gabriel, who were asphyxiated by Rottiers. The information also alleged the special circumstances that Epps, Rottiers, and Hutchinson (1) committed multiple murders within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3); and (2) committed the murders during the commission of a robbery in violation of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17).

Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] Mother contends the order must be reversed because the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) did not make an adequate inquiry into the minor’s Indian ancestry as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C., § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). We affirm.

Mother (Silvia P.) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights and creating a permanent plan of adoption as to minors A.P., M.P., An.P., and S.P. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] Mother contends the court erred by finding that the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption did not apply. We shall affirm.

Defendants Matthew Jones and Joshua Nickerson were convicted by a jury of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187; unspecified section references that follow are to this code) and two counts each of dissuading a witness (§ 136.1). The jury also found each offense had been committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), and a principal discharged a firearm and caused great bodily injury in connection with the attempted murder (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)).
Defendants appeal, contending the evidence is insufficient to support the attempted murder conviction, the firearm enhancement, and the gang enhancement. They also contend the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the firearm enhancement and the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments. We find no prejudicial error and affirm the judgments. However, we find an error in Nickerson’s abstract of judgment and order that it be corrected.

A jury convicted defendants J. Douglas Halford and Mark Hernandez of the second degree murder of a homeless man, Michael Wentworth, and the attempted murder of the decedent’s homeless friend, Randy Terrell. Terrell taunted and threatened defendants for harassing Danny “Old Man Dan” Rasmussen, his 62-year-old homeless neighbor, and defendants, believing Terrell was another man who had beaten their 56-year-old diabetic friend and mentor, Danny Hughes, pursued Terrell and a fight ensued. The jury rejected defendants’ claims of self-defense. On appeal, both defendants assert instructional error. We affirm.

Lawrence Love appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions of one count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, count 2)[1] and one count of second degree burglary (§ 459, count 3),[2] upon his plea of no contest pursuant to a plea agreement providing for a maximum sentence of four years. His plea was made after his two motions to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 were denied. Despite a psychiatrist’s report recommending probation, the trial court denied probation because the crimes “go to the core of the communities sense of security and safety” and involved elderly women. It sentenced appellant to the low term of two years on count 2 and a concurrent two-year term on count 3, awarding 285 actual days of presentence credit and 42 days of conduct credit.

On August 1, 2011, a jury convicted Michael Allen Garner of one count of felony attempted kidnapping to commit oral copulation of a person under the age of 18 years, in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 209, subdivision (b)(1), and three misdemeanor counts of child molesting, in violation of Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (a)(1). On September 15, 2011, the trial court sentenced Garner to five years in state prison. Garner filed a timely appeal.

D.L., a minor, appeals from the order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] petition against her by reason of her having committed petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor. The juvenile court continued appellant on home probation and ordered her to pay a $50 fine. After acknowledging that appellant paid the fine, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction. Appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that she committed petty theft.
We affirm.

Defendant Jahmal Frazier was convicted of robbery with the use of a handgun. He appeals the judgment on the ground he was given ineffective assistance of counsel. We reject defendant’s arguments and affirm the judgment.

Carlos G. (Father) appeals from a juvenile court order sustaining allegations of a dependency petition and making jurisdictional findings pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c).[1] A Tennessee court had ordered Father to have custody of his daughter, Alexis G., but after that court declined jurisdiction over a dependency petition filed with regard to Alexis G. in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the juvenile court properly assumed jurisdiction. We affirm the jurisdictional findings and dispositional order of the juvenile court.

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that appellant D.S. made criminal threats and engaged in robbery. He contends the court contravened Penal Code section 654 in determining his maximum period of confinement. We affirm.

Kandace C. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order sustaining allegations of a dependency petition and making jurisdictional findings pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).[1] We find that substantial evidence supports the allegations of the petition that Mother suffered from mental and emotional problems and that her daughter Jasmine W. suffered or was at substantial risk of suffering physical harm or illness. We affirm the jurisdictional finding and the adjudication order.

F.M. (mother) appeals the order of the juvenile court assuming jurisdiction over Y.M. and N.W (collectively minors) due to risks posed by domestic violence. We find no error and affirm.

Justin Darius Lucas appeals from a judgment of conviction of second degree robbery with the use of a firearm, and various prior offenses. Finding no prejudicial error, we affirm.