CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Luis Armando Delavega appeals from the judgment following trial at which the jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subd. (a); count 2) and found true the allegations that, as to the murder, he personally used a firearm and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which also caused great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). The trial court found true that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to prison to the two-year midterm on count 2, and on count 1 to a consecutive term of 25 years to life, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 12022.53. The court imposed and stayed (§ 654) another 25-year-to-life term under subdivision (b) of that same section and struck the one-year prior prison term enhancement.

The guardians ad litem for two elementary school students (identified for their protection as Jane Doe and Susan Doe) brought this civil lawsuit against the Sacramento City Unified School District and one of the district’s physical education teachers, Abdol Hossein Mehrdadi. Among other things, the lawsuit alleged Mehrdadi sexually molested the two students and the district negligently supervised Mehrdadi and failed to warn, train, or educate Jane, Susan and others about the risks of sexual abuse. The claims against Mehrdadi were dismissed prior to trial. Following trial, a jury found the district liable for negligently supervising Mehrdadi and negligently failing to warn, train or educate Jane and Susan about the risks of sexual abuse.

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, defendant John David Dananberg pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on formal probation for five years.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. He argues the evidence seized from him as a result of a warrantless search should have been suppressed because the search exceeded the scope of a permissible patsearch under Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1 [20 L.Ed.2d 889], and was not justified by probable cause or exigent circumstances. We conclude the motion to suppress should have been granted. Consequently, we reverse.

Defendant and appellant Manuel Gilbert Campos appeals from the denial of his petition to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126, also known as Proposition 36, or the Three Strikes Reform Act. We affirm.

A jury found R.G. to be gravely disabled due to a mental disorder and the court entered judgment renewing a previously imposed conservatorship of R.G.’s person and estate under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS). (Prob. Code, § 5000 et seq.) R.G. appeals, with the assistance of appointed counsel. The Solano County Public Guardian moves to dismiss the appeal as moot, noting that the challenged conservatorship had a one-year term that terminated months ago, on March 6, 2017. R.G. concedes the appeal is moot but urges us to deny dismissal to address a recurring issue that may evade review

Appointed counsel for defendant Joseph Justin Boatman asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. We find no arguable issues on appeal.

Rachel M. (mother) in propria persona seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders denying her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) and setting a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan of adoption as to her four-month-old son, J.M. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Mother contends the evidence in her case does not support a denial of services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), which applies when there is clear and convincing evidence that “the parent … of the child has a history of extensive, abusive and chronic use of drugs … and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition[.]” We deny the petition.

Plaintiff and respondent Network Capital Funding Corporation (Network Capital) filed a declaratory relief action alleging its arbitration agreement with defendant and appellant Erik Papke required Papke to arbitrate his wage and hour claims on an individual basis rather than the classwide basis he sought in his pending arbitration proceeding. Papke petitioned the trial court to compel Network Capital to submit its declaratory relief claims to arbitration. According to Papke, the broad language in the parties’ arbitration agreement required the arbitrator, not the court, to decide whether the agreement authorized class arbitration. The trial court denied Papke’s petition, concluding it must decide whether the arbitration agreement authorized class arbitration, and in doing so found this particular agreement did not allow class arbitration. Papke challenges both these conclusions on appeal.

Drew Viramontes appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving or withholding a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d). On both counts, the jury found true that Viramontes had a prior vehicle theft conviction (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)). Viramontes admitted a prior strike conviction.

In this juvenile dependency matter regarding Ga. M. (the child), the juvenile court terminated parental rights and selected adoption as the permanent plan pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. On appeal, Ge. M. (the father) contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by terminating his parental rights after determining that the beneficial parent/child relationship exception did not apply. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

Defendant and appellant Juan Felipe Vidriofuentes was convicted by jury of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and two counts of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664/211.) The jury also found that defendant used a deadly and dangerous weapon (a taser) in the commission of the robbery (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). In a separate proceeding, the trial court found defendant served a prior prison term (§ 667, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of five years on the robbery conviction and imposed concurrent three-year terms on the attempted robbery counts. As to the weapon use and prior prison term findings, the court stated it “will be striking, under 1385 power, the 12022(b)(1), for sentencing only, and the 667.5(b) is flat out stricken.”
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Derek Alan Hafelfinger appeals a judgment convicting him of oral copulation with, and the continuous sexual abuse of, his young step-daughter, M.T. Defendant contends, among other things, that the court made prejudicial evidentiary errors and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance We find no error and shall affirm the judgment.Defendant was charged by amended information with two counts of oral copulation with a child under the age of 10 (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)) and one count of continuous sexual abuse (§ 288.5, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that defendant had substantial sexual conduct with the victim who was under the age of 14, per section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(8).

Mother of the minor E.L. appeals the juvenile court’s order denying her request for a continuance of the selection and implementation hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Anthony S. appeals from the juvenile court’s order declining to seal the
records on a juvenile wardship petition and a notice of probation violation, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 786; the court sealed the records on another, more recent wardship petition. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.