CA Unpub Decisions

T.T. (mother) seeks extraordinary writ relief from an order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 with respect to A.T. (minor). Mother contends that (1) real party in interest, Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau), failed to offer her reasonable services; and (2) the evidence showed that the minor would be returned to mother’s custody if reunification services were extended to the 18-month review. We will deny the petition.

Appellant Kelly McGuire was fired from her position with respondent California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and appealed her termination to respondent California State Personnel Board (the Board), which affirmed the dismissal. McGuire then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the trial court, which denied the petition. McGuire appealed and claims that she is the victim of “huge statewide guerilla warfare retaliatory tactics,” but does not meet her burden of demonstrating that the Board or the trial court erred. (Bold typeface omitted.) We therefore affirm.

Appellant Prince F. Tsetse was tried before a jury and convicted of the first degree murder of Kimberly R. with a special circumstances finding that the murder was committed during the commission of a rape. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, sub. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C).) He appeals from the judgment sentencing him to prison for life without the possibility of parole, arguing his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by (1) failing to object to inadmissible and prejudicial portions of a recorded telephone conversation he had with his wife while in jail awaiting trial, and (2) failing to object to aspects of the prosecutor’s questioning of an expert witness regarding third party DNA found on the victim’s hand. Appellant contends the effect of these omissions was cumulatively prejudicial, even if neither would require reversal in and of itself. He additionally argues the trial court misspoke when it orally awarded $500,000 in restitution to the Victim’s Compensation

D.N. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s findings and orders sustaining the allegations of a dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (c), and (j); all statutory citations are to this code) concerning her son Lucas (born December 2008) and twin daughters Lauren and Lynn (born March 2016), and removing the children from her physical custody (§ 361). Mother contends the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to establish a causal link between her conduct and potential harm to the children. We disagree. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding mother suffered from mental health issues that caused her to neglect her children, and caused Lucas to suffer serious emotional damage. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

A.D. (Mother) appeals from a judgment of paternity in R.L.’s (Father) favor. (Fam. Code, §§ 7611, subd. (d), 7630, subd. (b).) Mother argues the court erred by not applying the so-called marital presumption of Family Code section 7540, and she contends no substantial evidence supports the court’s paternity finding. We affirm.

After remand from a prior reversal, defendant Ildefonso Perez appeals his sentence of 25 years to life for a conviction of second degree murder, attempted murder, and the imposition of a sentence enhancement. His primary argument is that his sentence is unconstitutional because he was 17 years old at the time of the crime. His opening brief, however, was filed before the California Supreme Court decided People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), which held that revisions to the Penal Code in recent years mooted just such a constitutional challenge, and accordingly, this argument is rejected. Defendant argued in his reply brief that he was entitled to a remand, as discussed in Franklin, for the purpose of placing facts into the record that would assist him at a future parole hearing. We remand for the trial court to conduct a hearing, pursuant to Franklin, to consider whether the record is adequate for that purpose, and if not, to conduct such a hearing. Resentencing is

Dejohn Lamont Mitchell appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him, and his co-defendant Donnis James Grimes, of kidnapping to commit robbery, carjacking, three counts of second degree robbery, two counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (GBI), and unlawful taking of a vehicle, and found true GBI allegations. In Mitchell’s appeal, he raises sufficiency of the evidence, instructional, and sentencing claims. Aside from the abstract of judgment that must be corrected, his claims are meritless. We affirm the judgment.

Donnis James Grimes appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him, and his co-defendant, Dejohn Lamont Mitchell, of kidnapping to commit robbery, carjacking, three counts of second degree robbery, two counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (GBI), and unlawful taking of a vehicle, and found true GBI allegations. In Grimes’s appeal, he raises sufficiency of the evidence, instructional, constitutional, juror misconduct, and sentencing claims.
As we explain below, we agree insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding Grimes inflicted GBI during the commission of one of the second degree robberies and that the abstract of judgment must be corrected. We reverse the jury’s true finding on the GBI enhancement as to count 3 and order the abstract of judgment corrected. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment and remand the matter.

The trial court sustained without leave to amend defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s third amended complaint (TAC), and in some respects we can understand why. The fine drafting of a succinct complaint can elude even the most seasoned practitioner. Overly repetitive themes and phrases and incorporating every previous cause of action into later causes of action leads to confusion and leaves the reader craving clarity. So it is in this case. Nevertheless, we tease out sufficient facts for some of plaintiff’s causes of action to survive the pleading stage.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of defendant Laura Lee Munoz’s petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18. In her original appeal, while noting the issue was under review at the California Supreme Court, we rejected the contention that her felony conviction for conveying an access card with intent to defraud (§ 484e, subd. (a)) qualified for resentencing under the statute. Further, we concluded that even if it did, defendant had failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish the card’s value was less than $950, the threshold for resentencing under the statute. (People v. Munoz (June 13, 2016, G051446) [nonpub. opn.], review granted Aug. 17, 2016, S235776 (Munoz).) Defendant filed a petition for review, which was granted and held along with numerous other similar cases.

Appellant Patrick James Cavanagh appeals from the trial court’s order extending his civil commitment to the State Department of Mental Health under Penal Code section 1026.5. He contends the court erred when it extended his commitment to October 8, 2018, rather than October 7, 2018. The People concede and we agree. We modify the commitment order accordingly.

Andre Forestiere (Andre), acting in propia persona, appeals from the probate court’s 2017 final order distributing the estate of his mother, Lorraine Forestiere (Lorraine), to his father, Rosario Ricardo Forestiere (Rosario), who was the sole beneficiary of her will. We affirm.

Plaintiff Rozalynn D. Brown is the beneficiary of a living trust established by her mother. When the mother died, Brown’s grandmother, Patricia Jimenez, became the successor trustee. After Jimenez exhausted the corpus of the trust through various purchases and expenditures, Brown petitioned the probate court to remove her as trustee, direct her to produce an accounting, and require her to reimburse the trust. Brown also sought double damages, attorneys’ fees, and interest. The probate court entered a judgment awarding Brown substantially all the requested relief. The total award was about $1.2 million plus interest, based on a trust balance at the time of the mother’s death of $345,000. Jimenez appeals.
We agree with Jimenez that certain portions of the probate court’s award were erroneous, but we reject her contentions that double damages and attorneys’ fees were not applicable forms of relief in this case. We will affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Appellant/defendant Matthew Najera robbed a store clerk in Bakersfield and escaped. Several hours later, Officers Martin and Sims attempted to contact him because he matched the suspect’s description. The officers reported that defendant resisted arrest and fled. A short time later, Officer Messick and Mundhenke attempted to take defendant into custody. They reported that he resisted, but the officers were able to subdue and arrest him. The robbery victim later positively identified defendant.