CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Richard Knowles of possession of heroin for sale. The trial court found that he had a prior conviction for the same offense, a prior strike, and two prior prison terms.
Before sentencing, defendant sought and was granted leave to proceed in propria persona. He moved to vacate the judgment and for new trial. Along with other contentions not renewed on appeal, defendant alleged that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to convey a pretrial offer of a four-year prison sentence, which he would have accepted had he known of it, before the offer expired. The trial court denied the motion and thereafter imposed a nine-year state prison term.
Defendant now contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. We agree and shall remand with directions that the court hold such a hearing.

Defendant Trev Peter Holmes contends there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for kidnapping and corporal injury to a former cohabitant. We affirm.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant Nolan Robert Dodson pleaded no contest to making a criminal threat. (Pen. Code, § 422.) The trial court sentenced him to three years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because his plea is not supported by an adequate factual basis. Defendant further contends he received ineffective assistance because trial counsel failed to ensure that his plea was supported by an adequate factual basis. We affirm the judgment.

A trial court has discretion when ruling on a motion for a mistrial, but it must properly exercise that discretion. In this case, after less than one full day of testimony, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on her admitted failure to investigate a potentially viable mental state defense. Counsel’s direct supervisor and, more importantly, the trial court, agreed that recordings of 911 calls--provided to counsel in discovery, well before trial--should have alerted her to this issue. We have listened to these recordings and agree that any reasonable criminal defense attorney would immediately have understood this evidence raised serious questions about defendant’s mental state, requiring investigation. But the trial court characterized the issue it had to decide as whether or not it had a duty to “bail out” defense counsel, instead of protecting defendant’s right to a fair trial, including the effective assistance of counsel. In these rare circumstances, we find th

A jury found defendant Patrick Edward Blackshire guilty of procuring and offering a forged instrument, perjury, and forgery of a legal document. The trial court sentenced him to a two-year state prison term.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in including language from Penal Code section 125 in the perjury instruction, and there is insufficient evidence to support the perjury and forgery convictions. Finding the error in the perjury instruction harmless, and sufficient evidence supporting the perjury and forgery convictions, we affirm.

The juvenile court declared three siblings, A.V., M.V., and D.V., dependents of the juvenile court, finding them at substantial risk for serious physical harm (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (a), (b)) based on a series of domestic violence incidents involving mother and her boyfriend. The juvenile court removed the children from mother’s custody and placed them with a paternal relative.
Mother’s appeal presents the following question: May the juvenile court sustain a dependency petition based on domestic violence and remove the children from mother’s custody where mother obtained a restraining order against the abusive boyfriend, but otherwise failed to cooperate with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)? On the record before us, the answer is yes.

Thomas D. Bona appeals the order recommitting him to the California Department of Mental Health for further treatment as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2972.) Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that his severe mental disorder cannot be kept in remission without treatment. We affirm.

A jury determined that Michael J. Busse met the criteria as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2970.) The trial court ordered him to undergo one year of additional treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2972.) Busse contends the judgment should be reversed because the court admitted case-specific hearsay in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez) and erroneously instructed the jury how to evaluate expert testimony based on that hearsay evidence. He also argues ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not preserve his contentions by making proper objections at trial. We affirm.

Appellant B.B. (father), the presumed father of B.B.C., appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, and its dispositional order. Father contends substantial evidence does not support the court’s decisions to assert jurisdiction over B.B.C. as to him or to remove the infant from parental custody after finding the assertion of jurisdiction warranted by substance abuse by B.B.C.’s mother before and during her pregnancy. We affirm.

An employee of an uninsured contractor was injured at work and filed a timely workers’ compensation claim, naming the uninsured contractor as the employer. The employee joined the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) as a party defendant.
Six years after the injury occurred, the UEBTF joined the property owner as a party defendant. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (appeals board), in a split decision, held that the statute of limitations was tolled.
We hold that the statute of limitations was not tolled. Accordingly, we annul the decision of the appeals board and remand with directions to dismiss the proceedings as to the property owner.

Perry Turner, individually and on behalf of his family trust, appeals from an order denying his petition under Government Code section 946.6 for relief from the requirement in the Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) that he timely file a claim with the City of Los Angeles (the City) prior to bringing a suit for damages. Turner argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition because, under the doctrines of delayed discovery and fraudulent concealment, his causes of action did not accrue until he discovered the wrongful acts committed by the City. Turner also asserts that he was entitled to relief under section 946.6 because any late filing of the claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. We affirm.

Eugene Matthew Peterson, Jr. pled no contest to several felonies, including attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). The trial court denied Peterson’s motion to withdraw his plea and sentenced him to 24 years in state prison.
Peterson appeals. His appointed counsel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Peterson did not file a supplemental brief. Our review of the record discloses no arguable issues. We affirm.

In this consolidated appeal, Sigaford Stevens appeals adverse rulings in two lawsuits against respondent Coastal Realty Business Trust (Coastal Realty). We affirm in the first appeal and dismiss the second.

Appellant Anthony McCune appeals from his convictions after a jury trial on three charges arising from a domestic violence incident. McCune claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to prosecutorial error during the trial and (2) the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by sentencing him to consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgment, but correct McCune’s sentence as to counts 2 and 4.