CA Unpub Decisions

In March 2021, the juvenile court adjudged, then two-year-old, Alexander a dependent child and removed him from parental custody after sustaining allegations he fell outside his home at approximately 12:30 a.m., while in mother’s care, sustained a broken femur and tested positive for amphetamine while receiving treatment at the emergency room. Mother was present with her attorney at the hearing and waived her right to a hearing on the allegations. The court ordered mother and Alexander’s father to participate in reunification services. Mother’s reunification plan required her to participate in a 14-week parenting/neglect counseling program and submit to random drug testing. The Kern County Department of Human Services (department) placed Alexander in foster care and then transitioned him to the home of a relative in May 2021.

On April 1, 1999, an information was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County charging appellant with counts1 and 2, willfully and unlawfully using force and violence resulting in the infliction of serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), with special allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on a person other than an accomplice (§§ 667, 1192.7); counts 3 and 4, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); and counts 5 and 6, willfully and unlawfully using force and violence and inflicting injury upon persons appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, were emergency medical technicians (§ 243, subd. (c)), with two prior strike convictions.
On November 2, 1999, after a jury trial, appellant was convicted of counts 1 and 2, and counts 5 and 6, and the serious bodily injury allegation was found true. He was acquitted of counts 3 and 4. The court found the prior strike convictions true.

On November 7, 2018, Victoria came to the attention of the department after a law enforcement officer found her three-year-old half sibling wandering down a road wearing only a soiled diaper. As a result of this incident, the department discovered that mother and father’s homes were unsafe and unsanitary. Thereafter, the department filed a dependency petition on behalf of Victoria and placed her in protective custody. That same day, father and mother verbally declared that they did not have Indian ancestry.
On November 9, 2018, father and mother each completed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form (ICWA-020) indicating they had no known Indian ancestry.
On January 16, 2019, Victoria was found to be a person described by section 300.
On January 29, 2019, at the disposition hearing, Victoria was ordered returned to mother’s custody on a family maintenance plan and father was ordered to participate in family reunification services.

On August 31, 2018, the Fresno County District Attorney charged defendant with 29 counts alleging crimes occurring on 16 separate dates. The information further alleged defendant had suffered a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)), had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On December 3, 2020, defendant pled no contest to domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 1) and conspiring to dissuade a victim or witness (§ 136.1, subd (c)(2); count 15), and he admitted personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in the commission of count 1 and having suffered a prior strike conviction. His plea was in exchange for a stipulated 18-year sentence.

Appellant’s convictions are based on a series of armed robberies involving 13 different victims. We need not discuss the facts underlying appellant’s conviction in detail because they are not relevant to this appeal.
At appellant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court awarded the following presentence credits: 823 days for time spent in actual custody, plus 117 days of conduct credits pursuant to section 4019, plus 677 days for time spent on presentence electronic monitoring, for a total of 1,617 days. Because appellant was convicted of a violent felony within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c), his accrual of conduct credits was limited pursuant to section 2933.1, subdivision (a) to “no more than 15 percent.”

Around midnight in late October 2019, a female called 911, reported a domestic disturbance, and hung up. Madera County Sheriff’s Department deputies were dispatched to the residence. Deputy Bangerter, who was in uniform and driving a marked vehicle, arrived first. He proceeded cautiously because it was very dark, and there were several residences and vehicles on the property.
The lights were on in only one house at the rear of the property and Deputy Bangerter heard male and female voices yelling from inside. Bangerter saw a male, whom he identified as defendant, come outside, look at him, and go back inside the house. Prior to and after seeing defendant, Bangerter announced himself and told the residents to come outside. Bangerter positioned himself behind a vehicle and when a woman, identified as Maria, came out, he directed her to come to him. She complied, he asked if there were any weapons in the house, and she said yes.

On May 28, 2019, the Kings County District Attorney filed an information, charging defendant with making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 1), misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and misdemeanor trespassing (§ 602, subd. (q); count 3). As to count 1, the information further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) which also qualified as a serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, former subd. (b)).
On August 26, 2019, defendant filed a motion to set aside all counts of the information (§ 995). On September 9, 2019, the trial court granted defendant’s motion as to counts 2 and 3, but denied the motion as to count 1.
On October 25, 2019, the trial court held a change of plea hearing. Before changing his plea, defendant inquired regarding his prison custody credit earning capacity.

Defendant attempted to make an unlawful U-turn across double yellow lines from the right-hand shoulder in front of Singh, causing a motor vehicle accident at approximately 10:30 p.m. A distinct odor of alcohol was coming from defendant; his eyes were red and watery, and his speech was thick and slurred. A preliminary alcohol screening test was administered, and defendant’s blood alcohol was 0.134 percent at 11:03 p.m. He was placed under arrest for driving while under the influence and causing injury to another. A subsequent blood test collected at 12:50 a.m. showed defendant’s blood sample contained 0.142 percent alcohol.
Singh, who was 79 years old, initially appeared to be fine and in good health after the accident. Although Singh had some blood on his face, which appeared to be from a bloody nose, he was talking and able to stand and walk around.

On or about October 27, 2011, appellant was an inmate at Valley State Prison for Women and a participant in mental health services. A correctional officer saw an object fall from appellant’s waistline and seized the item. The object was a lock placed inside of a sock, something commonly used as a weapon inside the prison.
Insanity Finding and Commitment
On October 10, 2012, a first amended information was filed in the Superior Court of Madera County charging appellant with count 1, unlawful possession of a weapon, “a lock in a sock,” while confined in a penal institution (§ 4502, subd. (a)) with one prior strike conviction and one prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, and the court appointed experts to examine her.
On November 9, 2012, appellant waived her right to a jury trial and submitted the matter on the experts’ reports. The parties stipulated that a “lock in a sock” was a weapon.

Mother and M.G. (Father) have three other children. (Father is not a party to this appeal.) The family has a dependency history concerning Marlena’s three siblings. The juvenile court took jurisdiction over the siblings on the basis of domestic violence between the parents and Mother’s untreated mental health issues, and the court terminated parental rights to the siblings in November 2020. Marlena was born in October 2020.
The present case began in March 2021. CFS received a referral alleging that the parents had a history of domestic violence. The reporting party was concerned that the parents were continuing to engage in domestic violence. Mother reportedly shook and yelled at Marlena often, and the parents fought over Mother’s treatment of the child.

Odero was born in Kenya in 1965 and came to the United States in 2001. On June 22, 2002, police responded to a domestic violence call to find Odero’s wife, D.O., with a laceration on her forehead. The police report stated that Odero and his wife were on the verge of divorcing, and she asked him to move out. He struck her, lacerating her forehead, and then got a knife from the kitchen and threatened to kill her. Odero was restrained by a family member, allowing D.O. to escape. Odero was arrested and charged with one felony count of domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), one felony count of criminal threats (§ 422), and one felony count of assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)).

The record in this case is limited. According to the register of actions, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on February 25, 2020. Wife filed her request for DVRO on August 3, 2020. The request for DVRO is not included in the record so it is not clear the reason(s) she sought the order. On August 18, 2020, Wife filed a declaration and a witness list, which is also not part of the record. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order.
The hearing on the permanent restraining order commenced on December 2, 2020. Wife testified. A witness, Martha M., testified on behalf of Wife. Wife’s testimony and Martha’s testimony have not been made part of the record on appeal. The matter was continued to December 23, 2020.
On December 23, 2020, the continued hearing on the permanent DVRO was held. Husband and two other witnesses testified on his behalf. Husband testified that he and Wife had been married for eight years.

The record in this case is limited. According to the register of actions, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on February 25, 2020. Wife filed her request for DVRO on August 3, 2020. The request for DVRO is not included in the record so it is not clear the reason(s) she sought the order. On August 18, 2020, Wife filed a declaration and a witness list, which is also not part of the record. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order.
The hearing on the permanent restraining order commenced on December 2, 2020. Wife testified. A witness, Martha M., testified on behalf of Wife. Wife’s testimony and Martha’s testimony have not been made part of the record on appeal. The matter was continued to December 23, 2020.
On December 23, 2020, the continued hearing on the permanent DVRO was held. Husband and two other witnesses testified on his behalf. Husband testified that he and Wife had been married for eight years.

During the afternoon of November 11, 2018, Richard R. parked his car next to a four-door Nissan Altima in a public parking lot. The Nissan’s rear windows were covered by sunshades that were not opaque, so Richard was able to see through them.
When Richard arrived, he noticed that there were people in the back seat of the Nissan. He noticed “[h]ead movement going up and down” near the “crotch area” of a seated man. Richard initially believed that a woman was performing oral sex on a man. Richard then exited his car and noticed “a little boy trying to climb into the front seat” from the back seat of the Nissan. The boy was the person Richard had seen moving his head up and down. The boy appeared to be Hispanic and eight to 10 years old, and he was wearing what Richard described as a blue and fluorescent green soccer uniform.
Richard later identified Flores as the man he saw that day, and John Doe as the boy he saw that day.