CA Unpub Decisions

S.K., mother of the minor (mother), appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her petition to modify a previous order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 388, 395.) Mother also contends her attorney rendered prejudicial ineffective assistance in failing to object to the permanent plan ordered by the juvenile court. We will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) attempts to appeal from trial court orders in 13 criminal cases by relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, which authorizes appeals only in civil cases. The lead case – People v. Lara (Super. Ct. Lassen County, 2021, No. CH037504) – involves an order by which the Lassen County Superior Court required CDCR to provide Lara’s trial attorney with reasonable access to confidential video conferencing with Lara for at least one hour per month. Each of the 13 felony prosecutions encompassed by this appeal involves a nearly identical order for reasonable access to confidential video conferencing. These orders were made while the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was widespread in nearly all of the counties along the path of travel between Lassen County and Pelican Bay State Prison, where defendants were being held pending trial. CDCR filed a motion to vacate. The trial court denied the motion.

Defendant Peter John Arendas represented himself at trial, after which the jury found him guilty of making criminal threats. The trial court sentenced him to three years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We disagree and affirm defendant’s conviction. However, we agree with his alternative argument that the imposition of the upper term was improper in light of new legislation. We conclude that his sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with Penal Code section 1170, as amended by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3) (Senate Bill 567).

More than a decade after California dissolved its redevelopment agencies (RDA’s), we continue to grapple with questions regarding the former RDA’s continuing obligations. (Cuenca v. Cohen (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 200, 207 (Cuenca); County of Sonoma v. Cohen (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 42, 44.) In dissolving the RDA’s, the Legislature recognized that some agreements and loans made in connection with redevelopment projects would require continued funding. (Cuenca, at p. 207; Health & Saf. Code, § 34191.4, subd. (b)(2)(C)(i).) As part of the Dissolution Law, the Legislature specified that enforceable obligations may be paid only under the oversight of the Department of Finance (DOF) and State Controller. (City of Emeryville v. Cohen (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 293, 298-299 (City of Emeryville).)

On July 28, 2014, defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to eight months in prison. Following his service of custodial terms on additional convictions, defendant was released to postrelease community supervision on January 31, 2018.
On September 20, 2021, defendant admitted that he violated the terms of his postrelease community service by failing to report to the probation office as instructed. The trial court revoked defendant’s postrelease community supervision, and ordered him confined to the county jail for 58 days. The court credited defendant with 10 days of custody. Defendant appealed, asserting that his appeal was based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of the plea.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.

The People appeal an order granting Skylar Marie Marshall’s motion pursuant to Penal Code section 995 to dismiss the information charging her with second degree murder. The People contend the trial court erred in granting the motion because there was sufficient evidence to support the murder charge. We affirm.

S.G., the mother of two boys, challenges jurisdictional findings she physically abused them and a dispositional order to drug test. We affirm. Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Following the juvenile court’s denial of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition concerning her daughter, P.C. (born Sept. 2015), P.S. (mother) filed the instant appeal, arguing that the juvenile court and Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with their initial duties of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). It is undisputed that DCFS failed to ask mother’s extended family members, namely P.C.’s maternal grandmother and maternal aunt, about Indian ancestry. The issue before us is whether that failure was prejudicial.
We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Izac McCloud challenges the trial court’s denial of his petition under Penal Code section 1170.95 for resentencing on his murder convictions. He contends that the trial court erred by finding that he failed to make a prima facie case for resentencing. We agree and reverse.

Robert James Guadagno (Robert) appeals a postjudgment order directing him to sell property and use the proceeds to pay Mary Ann Guadagno (Mary) the balance of an equity line of credit (LOC) plus interest and attorney fees. Robert argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render the order. We affirm.

This appeal is from the judgment entered after the sustaining of an unopposed demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiffs James Ressler and Lauren Karp, and defendant Lenny Piontak were shareholders of a corporation, Luxe West, Inc. Defendant Michelle Sivertsen is Mr. Piontak’s daughter and was employed by the business. Plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging they plundered business assets and failed to pay taxes. Defendants demurred, arguing plaintiffs lacked standing to make derivative claims belonging to the corporation, among other arguments. Plaintiffs did not oppose the demurrer, but filed a first amended complaint after the deadline to file their opposition to the demurrer. The trial court rejected the untimely first amended complaint for filing and sustained the unopposed demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Terrance McCrea appeals from the trial court’s order correcting his sentence. He contends the court erred by failing to strike three one-year enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) from his sentence because, following the enactment of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), those enhancements could no longer be imposed on him. We agree.

Following the termination of parental rights to his son, Timothy L. (Timothy, born June 2018), Aldo L. (father) filed the instant appeal, assigning three errors: (1) the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with its initial inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California law; (2) the juvenile court erred in denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition in which he requested that the juvenile court place Timothy in his custody or grant him reunification services; and (3) the juvenile court erred in not applying the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i).
Because the juvenile court did not commit reversible error, we affirm.

Tamara Berges (Berges) appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitrator’s award of attorney fees and costs to James and Susan Maniscalco (the Maniscalcos). They were prevailing parties in an arbitration resolving a dispute over the sale of a condominium. We consider (1) whether Berges’s claim that the arbitrator acted beyond his authority was ever appropriately raised below, and (2) whether the trial court erred when it found the arbitrator properly served the award on the parties’ attorneys instead of on the parties themselves.