CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant, G.B. (Minor), admitted a misdemeanor allegation of battery against the victim, his girlfriend. (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1); count 2.) After a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found Minor a ward of the court and placed him on formal probation. On appeal, Minor contends the court abused its discretion by declaring Minor a ward of the court and placing him on formal probation. Minor additionally argues that two of his probation terms are unconstitutionally vague and one is overbroad. We affirm.

Appellant Dario L., a minor, appeals following the juvenile court’s order declaring him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations that appellant had possessed cocaine (Health and Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and possessed marijuana on school grounds (former § 11357, subd. (e) [amend. by initiative measure Prop. 47, § 12, approved Nov. 4, 2014] ). Prior to appellant’s dispositional hearing, a second petition was filed alleging additional offenses that are not relevant to this appeal. Subsequently, the court held a combined dispositional hearing regarding both petitions, declared both the section 11350, subdivision (a) offense and the section 11357, subdivision (e) offense, as well as the charge stemming from the new petition, to be misdemeanors, and placed appellant on home probation.

After appellant Julie K. (mother) failed to reunify with her son, Christian K., the juvenile court terminated her parental rights and decided that Christian should be adopted by his paternal grandparents. In this appeal, mother argues that the juvenile court erred in failing to find that statutory exceptions to adoption applied and in failing to return Christian to her care. Because we conclude that mother met her burden of establishing the applicability of the beneficial-relationship exception to adoption under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

On March 29, 2012, a workplace accident occurred at King Pak Potato Capital Plant, a potato packing plant owned and operated by respondent Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. One of King Pak’s forklift drivers, respondent Hernandez Moreno, was loading potatoes into the truck of Baldemar Gutierrez (Gutierrez), who was assisting in the loading process from the cargo area of his truck, when the accident occurred. Gutierrez, but not Moreno, was injured and initially appeared in pain. He declined to take the load of potatoes as planned, but Gutierrez was able to leave King Pak on his own power with the intention of returning the next day to pick up his load. Gutierrez did not return, however, as within two to three days, he started spitting up blood and entered the hospital where he remained until his death less than 30 days later.

Steven Robertson Cumming appeals a judgment arising from disputes with his siblings, William Henry Cumming and Janet Anne Cumming, concerning his actions as trustee of a family trust and as the caretaker of their mother, the trustor, during several years immediately preceding her death. Steven asserts that he had a right to a jury trial, that the court failed to provide an adequate statement of decision, that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision, and that the judgment is contrary to law.
Although Steven has not met his burden to demonstrate prejudicial error as to the majority of his contentions, we conclude that he has met that burden with respect to the trial court’s erroneous application of Probate Code section 259, deeming Steven to have predeceased his mother for purposes of his right to benefit from her estate. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment in part.

John David Tittlefitz appeals from an order denying his petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. (Pen. Code, § 4852.01; all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He argues the court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional right to equal protection under the law. We find no error and affirm.

On August 16, 2017, the California Supreme Court ordered us to reconsider our prior December 7, 2015, decision, which affirmed the trial court’s denial of Sirman’s petition to reclassify two prior convictions. In light of People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903, we now issue the following decision.
Jack E. Sirman appeals an order denying his petition to reduce and reclassify his two prior convictions for acquiring or retaining possession of access card account information (Pen. Code, § 484e, subd. (d)) (counts 17 and 18) from felonies to misdemeanors under the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (§ 1170.18) (hereafter “Proposition 47”). We conclude, among other things, that the trial court incorrectly ruled these convictions did not qualify as the type of convictions eligible for reclassification under section 490.2. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Quennel Rutledge appeals an order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and committing him to the Department of Mental Health for involuntary treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.) We affirm.

Appellant Darin Alexander Pitcher sexually assaulted his sister over a several-month period when he was 17 years old. He appeals from a judgment sentencing him to prison for 21 years after a jury convicted him of two counts of sexual battery by restraint (Pen. Code, §§ 243.4, subd. (a)) , five counts of forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A)), one count of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) and one count of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A)). Appellant contends: (1) the trial court should have excluded evidence of incriminating statements he made to a police officer who delayed in giving him warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda); (2) the trial court erroneously removed a juror for failing to deliberate; (3) the case must be remanded for a “fitness” hearing before a juvenile court judge pursuant to The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57), which was enacted while this appeal was pending; an

In February 2013, Matthew Phillips pled guilty to felony possession of a nonnarcotic controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11377, subdivision (a) in Case No. SCD246245. In October 2013, Phillips pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11350, subdivision (a) in Case No. SCD239358. In November 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47) (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a)), which reduced certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and allowed a person convicted of one of those felonies before its passage to petition the court to reduce the felony conviction to a misdemeanor and be resentenced. In December 2015, Phillips successfully petitioned to have his felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors under Proposition 47.

In June 2013, Alexes Pastenes pled guilty to felony grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c).) In November 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47) (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a)), which reduced certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and allowed a person convicted of one of those felonies before its passage to petition the court to reduce the felony conviction to a misdemeanor and be resentenced. In December 2014, Pastenes successfully petitioned to have his felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. In May 2016, Pastenes filed a motion to expunge the DNA sample that law enforcement took by mouth swab when he was booked on his felony charge. The court denied the motion.

Defendant and appellant Chad Lawrence Netwig and his girlfriend, Jane Doe, got into an argument. Defendant held her down on his bed and she struggled to breathe. She was able to get free and they fell to the ground. Defendant grabbed a nearby Ethernet cable and put it around her neck, strangling her until she was able to get free. As a result of the incident, Doe suffered a cut lip, numerous bruises on her arms, a chipped tooth and the blood vessels in her eyes burst turning the whites of her eyes blood red. She had blurry vision for over six months.
Defendant makes one claim on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury findings that he caused great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (e). We affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Marcel Antione May (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon a plea of no contest to charges of injury to a cohabitant. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On June 1, 2017, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. Defendant has submitted a letter brief detailing facts that were not presented to the trial court, and asking that the charges be dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor. Upon reviewing the letter brief and the entire record, we have determined that although defendant has appealed from a judgment entered upon a plea agreement, he has not satisfied the prerequisites to such an appeal. We thus dismiss the appeal.

Following a joint jury trial, defendants Rogelio Mata Martinez (Martinez), Rogelio Mata, and Armando Mata were convicted as follows: