CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Johnny S. (father) and respondent Marisa S. (mother) are the parents of Jose L.S. (child), who was born in February 2013. The family court awarded mother sole physical and legal custody of Jose and an unborn sibling, with father to have weekly visitation. Father appeals, arguing he should have been given joint custody. We affirm.
We review a child custody order for abuse of discretion and apply the substantial evidence standard to the trial court’s factual findings. (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32.) Because the trial court expressly found credible a declaration submitted by mother on the issue of child custody, we state the facts consistently with her rendition of events to the extent they conflict with father’s. (See Fininen v. Barlow (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 185, 189–190.)

Defendant Bruce Leonard Collins pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and he admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that he had a prior serious felony conviction that also qualified as a strike (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years in prison.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts, but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant.
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, supra, at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts

Defendant Emilio Solorzano Rocha pleaded no contest to possession of matter depicting a person under age 18 engaging in or simulating sexual conduct (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)) after a search of defendant’s home revealed that he possessed child pornography on his computer and a thumb drive. Defendant was placed on probation for three years.
Defendant’s conditions of probation included a condition requiring that he “enter in, participate in, and complete an approved sex offender management program” (§ 1203.067, subd. (b)(2)); a condition requiring that he “waive any privilege against self-incrimination and participate in polygraph examinations” as part of the sex offender management program (id., subd. (b)(3)); and a condition requiring that he “waive any psychotherapist/patient therapist privilege to enable communication between the sex offender management professional and probation officer” (id., subd. (b)(4)).

Joyce Zimmerman appeals from a judgment following entry of a summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., on her claim for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA). The trial court granted summary judgment based on Wells Fargo’s contention the general release of claims, given by Zimmerman as part of an employment separation agreement, included a waiver of her right to bring a claim under PAGA. Zimmerman argues the court erred because her waiver of claims against Wells Fargo extended only to whatever claims she had as an individual, and did not include her distinct right to act in a representative capacity under PAGA. We agree, although we base our conclusion on a somewhat different analysis than the one advanced by Zimmerman.

A jury convicted Deante Montez Dowell of pandering by procuring a person for prostitution (Pen. Code, § 266i, subd. (a)(1) [count 1]; all statutory citations are to the Penal Code), pimping (§ 266h, subd. (a) [count 2]), and misdemeanor attempted destruction or concealment of evidence (§§ 135, 664 [count 3]). Dowell contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to substitute appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), admitting a witness’s preliminary hearing testimony, and admitting an expert’s opinion that Dowell was acting as a pimp. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm as modified.

Patrick L. (father), in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s dispositional orders denying him reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) and setting a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption for his now four-year-old daughter, Serenity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) allows the juvenile court to deny a parent reunification services when it finds there is clear and convincing evidence that “the parent … of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs … and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition[.]” We deny the petition.

Appellant Denero Leon Waters was convicted of escape from custody, a violation of Penal Code section 4532, subdivision (a)(1). He contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. He also contends the trial court erred at sentencing. We affirm the conviction, but modify the sentence.

Appellant/defendant Kalvin Michael Cardenas kidnapped a 10-year-old girl as she was walking to school and forced her into his pickup truck. He drove her to a secluded area, restrained her, and repeatedly sexually assaulted her. He left her partially submerged in a type of ponding basin, with her head above water. She was partially clothed and her hands were still restrained. He threatened to kill her if she tried to escape. The victim waited several hours and then managed to release her restraints, climbed out of the water, and was found by someone who lived in the area. The victim described the suspect and his vehicle to law enforcement officers, who released the description to the media in an attempt to find him. The investigators received a tip that a few months earlier, a man matching the description in a similar vehicle had tried to contact young girls in Dinuba. After additional investigation, defendant was identified as the Dinuba suspect, and the victim in this case ide

Brian Keith Waldron (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and mutilation of human remains (Health & Saf. Code, § 7052, subd. (a); count 2). His motions for a new trial and to reduce count 1 to a lesser offense were denied, and he was sentenced to three years plus 25 years to life in prison. On appeal, we hold: (1) The trial court did not err by excluding evidence that defendant claims would have corroborated his account of his state of mind and bolstered his credibility; (2) Any error in excluding evidence that would have corrected misleading implications created by the prosecution’s abridged version of certain evidence was harmless; (3) The trial court did not err by excluding evidence of certain of the victim’s prior specific acts; (4) Defendant was not entitled to the victim’s contemporaneous mental health records; (5) Admission of evidence of a specific prior act of defendant is not cause for r

P.B. is the father (father) of T.W., who was just under three years old on the date of the challenged order. Father appeals from the visitation order made at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing held on January 18, 2017. Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it reduced his visitation from twice weekly to once a month and refused to allow father’s adult daughter, Patricia, to supervise father’s visitation. We conclude this was a reasonable order to make after denying father reunification services and so affirm the order.

Appellant A.B. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court’s order denying placement of her son, M.B. (the child), with his adult half-sister, M.B., at the six-month review hearing. Mother claims that, in light of the statutory relative placement preference (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.3), the juvenile court erred in declining to place the child with M.B. We affirm.

This is a wrongful foreclosure action. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the third amended complaint and dismissed the action. In a previous appeal, we reversed, holding that the trial court should have given plaintiff Bert G. Cotton at least one more chance to amend his complaint.
On remand, Cotton failed to file a timely amended complaint; the trial court therefore dismissed the action again. Cotton’s first response was to file a second appeal; however, he abandoned it, and we dismissed it. His next response was to file a motion to vacate the judgment, supported by a declaration by his attorney admitting fault. The trial court denied the motion. It ruled that, due to our dismissal of the second appeal, the judgment had become final and could not be vacated.

Benjamin D. appeals the judgment entered following the jurisdiction and disposition hearing in the juvenile dependency case of his minor daughter Destiny D. He contends the juvenile court erred by allegedly making a true finding "against him" under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (e). We disagree with Benjamin's interpretation of the court's findings. And, even taking Benjamin's arguments on their own terms, he has failed to raise any justiciable issue. We will therefore dismiss his appeal.

Alex David Stewart entered a pawn shop and sold a stolen computer for $250. He subsequently pleaded guilty to felony burglary under Penal Code section 459.
After the passage of Proposition 47, known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text of Prop. 47, pp. 70–74), Stewart petitioned under new section 1170.18 to recall his sentence and to be resentenced for misdemeanor shoplifting under new section 459.5, subdivision (a). The trial court entered an order denying the petition, finding Stewart had not established his burglary conviction qualified for reduction to shoplifting. We affirmed the order. (People v. Stewart (Mar. 14, 2016, D067967) [nonpub. opn.].)