CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant James Herman Hill was sentenced to 320 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of four counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 and also found he had previously been convicted of the same offense three times. On appeal, defendant urges us to review records of his victim’s therapy sessions to determine whether the trial court failed to disclose impeachment evidence contained within them. He further contends his trial counsel was ineffective for a variety of reasons and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence about his prior convictions for sexual assault and denying his mistrial motion based on juror misconduct. Upon a review of the victim’s therapy records, we conclude the trial court did not prejudicially error in failing to disclose impeachment evidence. We also conclude defendant’s remaining claims lack merit and thus affirm.

Defendant Brian Douglas Cassidy pled no contest to four offenses and admitted a sentence enhancement, and the trial court imposed a prison sentence of five years and eight months but suspended execution of the sentence and granted defendant probation. A year later, after finding defendant had violated the terms of his probation, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation and ordered execution of the previously suspended sentence.

In this case, Eric Leroy Nelson appeals from a domestic violence restraining order issued against him and in favor of his wife, Maria Carmen Nelson, following an evidentiary hearing in this marital dissolution proceeding. Finding no merit in any of Eric’s arguments, we will affirm.

A jury found defendant Marvin Ray Markle, Jr., guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187; statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated) and sustained an enhancement for personally using a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Defendant admitted a strike and a prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (d), 1170.12) and the trial court sentenced him to 75 years to life plus five years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present evidence of third party culpability that counsel promised to present in the opening statement. He further contends that the jury instructions on the corpus delicti rule relieved the prosecution of its burden of proving the degree of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment.

This opinion involves dependency proceedings over two minors who share the same mother but have different fathers. In one case, Ernest G. appeals from the dependency court’s jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) pertaining to his son, E.G. He also appeals the court’s dispositional orders removing E.G. from parental custody under section 361, subdivision (c). Ernest contends neither order is supported by substantial evidence. The Department has moved to dismiss as moot the portion of Ernest’s appeal relating to the removal order because the court subsequently permitted E.G. to be placed with Ernest.

In January 2017, the juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction over five-month-old Wayne D., III. Wayne D. (father) challenges a disposition order requiring him to submit to 10 random or on demand consecutive drug tests. Although father concedes the evidence may have supported an order requiring him to submit to alcohol testing, he argues the evidence did not support an order for drug testing. We affirm the juvenile court order.

Defendant and appellant Christopher Porter appeals from the superior court’s order revoking and reinstating his parole supervision on condition that he serve 180 days in jail. Defendant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, stating that no arguable issue exists and requesting that this court independently review the record. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We affirm the order.

On September 15, 2015, defendant and appellant Hector Montiel Sanchez was charged by information with one count of theft (Pen. Code, § 484e, subd. (d)). It was also alleged defendant had suffered four prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The charges were based on defendant’s unlawful possession of an access card belonging to another individual (a California EBT card issued to an unrelated female). The access card was discovered in defendant’s pocket during a patdown search following his detention by Long Beach police officer Gabriel Betanzos. Defendant was observed by the officer committing a misdemeanor in a public location, and was a known member of the East Side Longo gang, subject to a gang injunction applicable to that location.

In this dependency case, mother Judith D. challenges the court’s jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d), regarding mother’s failure to protect her daughter D.F. (minor) from serious physical harm and sexual abuse by mother’s male companion. The Department of Children and Family Services (Department) moved to dismiss the appeal as moot because, during the pendency of the appeal, the court terminated jurisdiction over the minor. Due to the seriousness of the sexual abuse allegation and potentially far-reaching consequences that finding may have on mother and other members of her family, we reach the merits of her appeal. Because substantial evidence supports the court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (d), we affirm.

Appellants Maria P. (Mother) and Esteban D. (Father) appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders regarding their daughter Cynthia and her four younger siblings. Appellants argue the jurisdictional findings under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1) are not supported by substantial evidence. Appellants also appeal from the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing Cynthia from their custody, arguing the order is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.

Veronica B. (Mother) appeals dependency court jurisdictional findings and orders concerning her children. We dismiss Mother’s appeal because it has been rendered moot.
Mother is the parent of three children: V.B., born in October 2006; Ge.B., born in February 2008; and Gu.B., born in October 2010. The family came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) most recently in late March 2016 when the agency received a referral from a caller who reported that Mother had suffered a seizure on Sunday, March 20, in the presence of her three children. Mother was transported by paramedics to a local hospital where she tested positive for cocaine and marijuana.

Appellant Lydell Lawrence appeals the judgment following his conviction and sentence for carrying a concealed and loaded handgun in his vehicle. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the search of his vehicle exceeded the scope of his consent. We need not decide that issue because the search was independently justified by probable cause under the automobile exception. Appellant also requests that we review the sealed transcript of an in camera hearing on the discovery of officer personnel records pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). We have done so and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering only one item of information disclosed. We correct an error in the fines imposed for his sentence and affirm.

The charges in this case arose out of an extended car chase. Louis Garcia was convicted of unlawful driving (Veh. Code, § 10851), evading a peace officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2), carrying a loaded firearm in public (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a)), hit and run with property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)), and firearm possession by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800). The jury found true the allegations that Garcia had committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang with respect to the unlawful driving and firearm charges (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Garcia to eleven years, four months in prison.
On appeal, Garcia contends no substantial evidence supports (1) the unlawful driving conviction, (2) the firearm convictions, or (3) the gang allegations. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant Jonathan B. Hurth appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition to reduce his felony convictions for receiving stolen property and second degree burglary to misdemeanors under Penal Code section 1170.18, a provision of Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. Defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing his eligibility to reduce his sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of his petition, but do so without prejudice to subsequent consideration of a new, properly supported petition.