CA Unpub Decisions

This case is about how school bonds are ultimately funded. According to the plaintiffs, the Coalition for Adequate School Housing and a number of school districts (collectively the Coalition), the defendant, the State Allocation Board (the Board) is required by statute to apply an inflation adjustment at the time there are funds ready to disburse to an approved project. The Board, the plaintiffs argue, has no authority to exercise discretion as to whether to apply an inflation adjustment. The Board disagrees, contending that regulations give it that discretion.
The trial court made numerous findings after considering the Coalition’s petition for a writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), which sought reversal of the Board’s decision. The court found the Board did not have a duty to include inflation adjustments in the funds disbursed to an approved project.

Defendant Christopher Alexander Smith was charged with four felony sex offenses against three children: (1) lewd or lascivious act on H., a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a) (section 288(a) or § 288(a)); count 1); (2) oral copulation or penetration of a child, Na., who was under the age of 10 years (§ 288.7, subd. (b); count 2); (3) felony use of a minor, Na., to perform prohibited acts through posing and modeling for purposes of preparing film, photograph, negative or slide (§ 311.4, subd. (c); count 3); and felony use of a minor, No., to perform prohibited acts through posing and modeling for purposes of preparing film, photograph, negative or slide (§ 311.4, subd. (c); count 4).
Defendant pled no contest to count 1, which carried a sentencing triad of three, six or eight years, and agreed to a sentencing lid of eight years. In exchange for his plea, counts 2, 3 and 4 were dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey).

At the center of this appeal is appellant Victoria Bosier’s effort to “amend” the judgment dissolving her marriage to Ellery Jean Stevenson in 2004. This opinion addresses the appealability of the decision made in the trial court, the validity of the decision made, and the adequacy of the record provided. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the request to amend.

Plaintiff Yvette M. Tanguma appeals after her complaint was dismissed on demurrer. This is the second time a dispute between these parties has come before this court. Underlying both litigations is plaintiff’s attempt to prevent or reverse foreclosure proceedings resulting in the sale of her home. In her prior appeal, plaintiff attempted to rely on a series of technical arguments to contend that the trustee attempting to sell her home lacked authority to do so. This court rejected plaintiff’s arguments on the basis that plaintiff only alleged facts that made the contested transactions voidable. Under the law, this meant she lacked standing to pursue an action to prevent the foreclosure sale. In this litigation, relying on the same core factual assertions, plaintiff alleges she can proceed with a lawsuit for breach of contract and unlawful foreclosure because the foreclosure sale has been completed and, thus, she has been harmed.

Plaintiff Joseph M. Alcala (Joseph) along with his father, defendant Ralph Alcala (Father), and his brothers, defendants Carlos Alcala (Carlos), Adolph Alcala, and Ralph Alcala, Jr. (collectively, Brothers), were the co-owners of defendant Alcala Farms, a general partnership (Partnership), and defendant Alcala Ranches, LLC (LLC). (Partnership and LLC are collectively referred to as the Family Business. Father, Brothers, and the Family Business are collectively referred to as Defendants Alcala.)
In 2018, Joseph, on the one hand, and Brothers and the Family Business, on the other hand, signed an agreement (Buyout Agreement) for the sale and purchase of Joseph’s ownership interests in the Family Business.

G.H. (father) appeals from orders terminating his parental rights to his daughters E.H. and I.H. (collectively children). The mother of the children claimed to have Cherokee, Blackfoot, and/or Sioux ancestry. Pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related federal and state law, Children and Family Services (CFS) sent notice of the proceedings to all such tribes; none of them responded that the children were members or eligible to become members.
After that notice was sent, the father and his mother claimed to be descended from Pocahontas. The father now contends that CFS failed to adequately investigate that claim and failed to give notice to any Pocahontas-related tribe.
We will hold that CFS erred by failing to make any ICWA inquiry to the father’s father. However, we will also hold that, based on the inquiries that it did make, CFS had no duty to give notice to any to any Pocahontas-related tribe.

Defendant and appellant Robert Daniel Rodriguez appeals from an order revoking his post release community supervision (PRCS) and sentence of 150 days in county jail. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

Following a probation revocation hearing, the trial court found that defendant and appellant Daniel Martinez had violated five of his probationary terms and sentenced him to six years in state prison, which included the upper term of three years, plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. The court also imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $300. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing the restitution fine and that the matter should be remanded for a new sentencing hearing in light of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). We conclude that the restitution fine must be stricken, and remand the matter for a new sentencing hearing in light of Senate Bill No. 567.

Defendants and appellants Emmanuel Pimentel and Jesus Urzua appeal their three murder convictions, for which the jury found true special circumstances and returned verdicts of life without the possibility of parole. Pimentel and Urzua raise several arguments about alleged errors in the proceedings below, some jointly and some individually. We affirm the convictions, except, based on recent changes to the law, we must vacate the jury’s true findings on gang-related special circumstances, gang enhancement allegations, and certain personal firearm use enhancements and remand for further proceedings.

P.B. (Mother) appeals from orders issued at a January 26, 2022, review hearing pertaining to her daughter, K.T. She contends the juvenile court erred in finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Counsel for Mother and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) have conferred and agree that the Agency’s investigation under ICWA was inadequate. The parties filed a joint stipulation seeking the issuance of an immediate remittitur. We accept the stipulation, conditionally reverse, and remand for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA’s requirements.

J.G. (Father) appeals from an order pertaining to his daughter, D.F., finding without prejudice that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Counsel for Father and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) have conferred and agree that the Agency’s investigation under the ICWA was inadequate. The parties filed a joint stipulation seeking the issuance of an immediate remittitur. As we shall explain, both the juvenile court and the Agency erred in performing their respective duties under the ICWA. Accordingly, we accept the stipulation, conditionally reverse, and remand for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA’s requirements.

Appointed counsel for defendant Daniel Esparza has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Antoine Lashawn Stewart has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has disclosed an error in defendant’s favor concerning imposition of the restitution and parole revocation restitution fines. We modify the judgment to correct the error and otherwise affirm; no new abstract of judgment is needed.

George W. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders removing the minor from parental custody and bypassing him for reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361, 395.) He contends the juvenile court erred in failing to find him the minor’s presumed father under the principles of Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816 (Kelsey S.) or, alternatively, in failing to provide him with discretionary reunification services. He also contends the Butte County Department of Employment and Social Services (Department) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.