CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Victoria Gomez pleaded guilty to felony evading in Los Angeles Superior Court and was placed on supervised probation in Los Angeles County. During the probationary period, she voluntarily moved to Victorville, located in San Bernardino County. Her case was transferred to San Bernardino County. Upon transfer, the San Bernardino County Probation Department recommended additional terms and conditions of probation normally imposed by San Bernardino County in order to ensure officer safety and offender compliance. Defendant objected to the new conditions. The trial court ordered the additional terms be imposed.
Defendant claims on appeal that the transfer of probation from Los Angeles County to San Bernardino County did not authorize additional or different probation terms because it did not constitute a change of circumstances and the change in conditions violated her plea bargain.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of J.T. (mother) and D.H. (father) as to their three children and selected adoption as the permanent plan. Neither parent appealed from those orders, and they are now final. K.S. and W.S., the maternal grandparents, appeal from an order of the juvenile court denying their petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to place the children in their care and custody.
The grandparents argue, inter alia, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) did not properly assess them for relative placement and, in fact, defied orders of the juvenile court to do so. They further argue the juvenile court did not exercise independent discretion to determine whether the children should be placed with them. Because the orders terminating parental rights and freeing the children for adoption were not appealed, and have since become final, we cannot provide the grandparents with any effective relief, and their appeal

Plaintiff and respondent James Cook is a member of plaintiff and respondent SBPEA Teamsters Local 1932 (Local 1932) and until his termination was an employee of defendant and respondent County of San Bernardino (County). Defendant San Bernardino County Civil Service Commission (Commission) dismissed Cook’s appeal of his termination because his union representative failed to attend a mandatory prehearing conference.
Cook filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, naming the County, its Board of Supervisors, and the Commission as parties, seeking to have his appeal reinstated. The trial court granted the petition, finding the dismissal to be “arbitrary and capricious,” and ordered the Commission to reinstate Cook’s appeal and proceed with the hearing.

Following a jury trial, defendant and appellant Juan Carlos Alcala was found guilty of murdering Felipe Lozano (Felipe) and his two-year-old daughter, and attempting to murder Felipe’s mother. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664.) It was further found true that he personally used a firearm. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) The jury rejected defendant’s insanity defense. He appeals, contending the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that he was sane, and the court erred in not requiring the jury to make separate sanity determinations as to each of the shootings. He further asserts that one of his multiple-murder special-circumstance findings must be stricken. We agree with his last claim but reject his others.

On October 22, 2012, an amended felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Ron Douglas Patterson with reckless evasion of a police officer under Vehicle Code section 2800.2 (count 1); transportation or sale of methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a) (counts 2, 7); transportation or sale of cocaine under Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) (count 3); possession of cocaine under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) (count 4); possession of morphine under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) (count 5); possession of MDMA under Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) (count 6); and possession of PCP under Health and Safety code section 11377 (count 8).

A jury convicted Arturo Navarro of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 1) and arson of an inhabited structure (§ 451, subd. (b); count 2). The jury did not find true the allegation that the attempted murder was premeditated and deliberate (§ 189).
In a separate trial, a jury found Navarro guilty of robbery (§ 211; count 3). Navarro admitted a prison prior, two strike priors, and two prior serious felony convictions.
The court sentenced Navarro to prison for an aggregate term of 20 years plus 50 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life on count 1, plus two consecutive five-year terms for each of his prior serious felony convictions, and 25 years to life on count 3, plus two consecutive five-year terms for each of his prior serious felony convictions. Per section 654, the court imposed but stayed a 25-year-to-life sentence, plus two consecutive five-year enhancements for his prior serious felony convictions under count 2.

Donald Edwards appeals after pleading guilty to the unlawful use of personal identifying information of another in violation of Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a), and admitting the allegation that he had previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), 1170.12, and 668.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We granted Edwards an opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so. After independently reviewing the entire record (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119), we find no arguable appellate issues and affirm.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
In 2013, defendant Corey Jacob Smith was sentenced to state prison for a violation of Penal Code section 290.010. On May 31, 2014, he was released on postrelease community supervision (PRCS). In case No. MCYKCRRS 14 1623 (hereafter, case No. 1623), a petition for revocation of PRCS filed December 1, 2014, alleged that defendant had not lived at his reported address since August 14, 2014. On June 12 and June 17, 2014, defendant had submitted positive drug tests for methamphetamine.
In case No. MCYKCRF 14 1790 (hereafter, case No. 1790), defendant entered a plea of no contest to failing to file a required change of address (§ 290.013, subd. (b)) and admitted a strike prior (1999 rape of an intoxicated person) (§§ 667, subds. (b) (i), 1170.12) and two prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5,

Although Lisa Johnson did not include a copy of her complaint in the clerk’s transcript on appeal, she asserts in her appellant’s opening brief that in 2012 she went to the office of Quality Property Management LLP to ask why her full security deposit was not returned. She claims she got into an argument with defendant Anthony Baimas, who allegedly shut the door on her foot causing her to be injured. Johnson says she sued Rose Glen L.P., Quality Property Management LLP, and Anthony Baimas for negligence, claiming she suffers from complex regional pain syndrome which will affect her for the rest of her life.
A jury found defendants were not negligent and it did not award Johnson any damages. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants.
Johnson now contends the trial court erred in overlooking material facts, in barring evidence of a settlement offer, and in ruling that she could not prove causation. She also claims the trial judge was biased.

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found that minor D.S. vandalized property in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a)(2). The court reduced the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor and declared the minor a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The court ordered the minor to serve 20 days in the juvenile detention center with credit for two days served and the remaining days of detention suspended pending a successful school review. The minor was released to his parents and ordered to comply with various probation conditions upon completion of his commitment to the juvenile detention center.
On appeal, the minor contends there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s finding that he committed misdemeanor vandalism. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (the Department) dismissed plaintiff Timothy Edgmon for misconduct while on duty on the basis of an investigation that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) conducted on the Department’s behalf. Edgmon sought review of the Department’s action with the State Personnel Board (SPB). While the SPB proceedings were underway, Edgmon brought the present collateral action in which he claimed two interviews that the CHP conducted of him were in violation of three provisions of the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (FBOR) (Gov. Code, § 3250 et seq.). He thereafter filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in this collateral action—in effect, a motion in limine—to preclude the admission of his statements to the CHP in the proceedings on his pending administrative appeal to SPB of his dismissal (as well as a request to set aside his dismissal).

A jury found defendant Abraham I. Arroyo guilty of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), and robbery (§ 211), and found true an allegation the rape was committed during the commission of a first degree burglary with the intent to commit theft (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(2)). The jury found defendant not guilty of assault with intent to commit oral copulation, but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault. (§ 240.) The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in state prison for the rape committed during the commission of a first degree burglary and stayed execution of defendant’s sentence on the remaining counts pursuant to section 654.

A jury convicted defendant David Arnold Souza on 21 counts of theft by false pretenses and found true various enhancement allegations. The trial court sentenced him to 18 years in prison.
Defendant now contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions on 11 of the 21 counts, (2) the trial court should have imposed only one Penal Code section 186.11 sentencing enhancement, and (3) he is entitled to additional presentence credit.
We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions, but we will modify the judgment to strike the imposed but stayed section 186.11, subdivision (a)(3) enhancement and to award additional presentence credit. We will affirm the judgment as modified.

Defendant Rico Riley committed sexual offenses against a victim in her apartment. Convicted of those crimes and sentenced to long, consecutive determinate and indeterminate terms, defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion challenging the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge to excuse an African-American prospective juror. In connection with that contention, defendant argues that his due process rights have been violated because the juror questionnaires for the prospective jurors not selected to serve are not available to add to the record. We conclude that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion challenging the use of peremptory challenges because there was no prima facie showing that the prosecution exercised a challenge based on impermissible criteria. And we conclude that the unavailability of juror questionnaires does not violate defendant’s due process rights because he is not entitled to a comparative jur