CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Melvin James Franklin of possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1).) In bifurcated proceedings, Franklin admitted that he served a prison term for convictions in 1999 for possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)); a prison term for a conviction in 2004 for attempted robbery (§§ 664/211); and a prison term for a conviction in 2009 for possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). The trial court sentenced him to six years in state prison: two years on the new offense, plus 4 one-year terms on the prior prison terms pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).

On February 13, 2016, appellant was pulled over by Fresno Police Department for a traffic stop. Officers contacted appellant and appellant advised that he did not have his driver’s license with him. Appellant initially provided the officers with a false name. After further conversation, appellant conceded his true identity and was found to have a suspended driver’s license and an outstanding warrant. A search of the vehicle uncovered multiple identification cards from different states and with different names, but contained appellant’s photograph. Officers also found several checks and credit cards that did not belong to appellant.

Defendant Rafael I. Estupinian was convicted of assaulting Maria C. at a house in which Maria and defendant rented rooms. During trial, the state introduced statements defendant made in a police interview subsequent to being given the warning prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). Defendant contends that these statements should have been excluded because the police withheld the Miranda warnings until partway through the interview. We find substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the police were not attempting to undermine Miranda by waiting to read defendant his rights, and affirm.

Defendant David Bennett appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. He contends that his three felony convictions for second degree burglary should have been reduced to misdemeanors
under Proposition 47. We agree and reverse the order.

A jury convicted Nicholas Baucom of three counts of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), three counts of procuring a false instrument (§ 115, subd. (a)), one count of forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), and one count of counterfeiting a seal (§ 472). The trial court sentenced him to three years in state prison. Baucom contends the court abused its discretion when it: (1) granted his motion for self-representation, and (2) denied his request for assistance of counsel during cross-examination. We affirm.

A. O. (mother) filed this appeal after the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition, removed her child, M.L., from her care, placed the child with his father, and ordered monitored visitation for her. At the Welfare and Institutions Code section 364 hearing six months later, the juvenile court continued jurisdiction, but permitted M.L. to return to mother’s care, under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Mother’s failure to appeal from that order renders her challenge to the jurisdictional finding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and issued an order granting sole physical and legal custody of I.H. to father I.H., Sr., and mother D.T. was given monitored visits. Mother does not claim any error in the termination of the juvenile court’s dependency jurisdiction, nor did she object to the custody orders in the trial court. Her sole claim on appeal regards the juvenile court’s visitation order.
She argues that the juvenile court delegated to father the power to prevent mother’s visitation, as the monitor must be approved by father or paid for by her. Since mother expressly agreed to the custody and visitation orders, she forfeited appellate review of the visitation order. Thus, we affirm.

E.N. appeals from a juvenile court order declaring him to be a ward of the court and placing him on probation upon a finding that he committed the misdemeanor offense of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding. We affirm.

The sole contention raised by defendants and appellants J.B. (father) and G.C. (mother; collectively parents) is that plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) failed to provide accurate notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). CFS agrees with the parents.
On July 19, 2016, a juvenile dependency petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (g), on behalf of three-year-old A.B. and five-year-old L.B (the children). Prior to the detention, the children lived with both mother and father.

Tyler B., a 17-year-old minor, appeals from a disposition order of the juvenile court, challenging an electronics search condition of his probation as unconstitutionally overbroad. He also challenges the juvenile court’s calculation of his custody credits, and the language of the disposition order. We reject his contentions and affirm the order.

K.K. (Mother) and D.O. (Father) appeal an order terminating parental rights to their son, K.O., and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding the beneficial parental relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply. Father joins Mother’s argument “to the extent those arguments inure to his benefit.” We affirm.

This is another appeal by a defendant who lost an anti-SLAPP motion, here in a case in which she had been sued for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The trial court denied the motion because plaintiff demonstrated he would prevail on the merits. We agree and we affirm.
Appellant Elham Zarnegar met respondent Hamid Hashemi through mutual friends. They thereafter became involved romantically, and also in an extensive home renovation project at Zarnegar’s property. The romantic relationship ended and the home improvement project foundered, leading to the first lawsuit between the parties, Zarnegar’s suit against Hashemi.

Plaintiff Rafe Esquith, a teacher, sued his employer, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), LAUSD superintendent Ramon C. Cortines, and LAUSD employee David R. Holmquist, alleging retaliation and discrimination. Esquith alleged that he was an outspoken critic of certain LAUSD policies and he was nearing retirement, and as a result defendant retaliated and discriminated against him by removing him from his teaching position and conducting a baseless, meandering investigation designed to damage Esquith’s career and reputation. Defendants filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16), arguing that Esquith’s causes of action arose from the employment investigation, which is a protected activity. The trial court denied the motion, and defendants appealed.

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.
We conclude that Steven has not met his burden to demonstrate prejudicial error. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.