CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found Randall Goodlett guilty of one count of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211; further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) In bifurcated proceedings, the court found true the following allegations: defendant committed the offense while out on bail (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)); and defendant had one prison prior (§ 677.5, subd. (a)), one serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
After closing argument and while the jury was deliberating, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on what she contended was improper rebuttal argument by the prosecutor. Incorrectly believing that defense counsel could not bring such a motion without the express agreement of defendant personally — which defendant did not provide — the trial court declined to rule on the motion.

Defendant Lance Michael Cordero received a grant of three years’ probation based on his plea of no contest to possession of a firearm while under the influence of methamphetamine, driving on a suspended license with a prior conviction of the same offense, and driving under the influence of a drug. Before the trial court imposed sentence, defendant moved to represent himself in order to withdraw the plea. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta).) After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, finding defendant was not competent to represent himself and his attempt to do so would likely disrupt the proceedings. (People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 (Welch).) Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion, having received a certificate of probable cause to do so. We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant David Richard Cingcon has filed an opening brief asking us to review the record for error pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We modify the judgment to correct an error in the oral pronouncement of sentence, direct correction of typographical errors in the abstract of judgment, and affirm the judgment as modified.

Appointed counsel for defendant Dale Wayne Burns asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding an error in the calculation of presentence credits, we shall modify the award of credits and affirm the judgment as modified.

On April 8, 2016, this court affirmed the convictions of defendant and appellant Daniel Avila on multiple counts, but remanded with directions to resentence defendant on several counts and special allegations, as well as for preparation of a new abstract of judgment. (People v. Avila (Apr. 8, 2016, B257654) [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court held a sentencing hearing in compliance with our opinion on September 23, 2016. The hearing was held in defendant’s absence after the court concluded defendant had refused to cooperate in transportation from state prison to court. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Aurelio Alfaro appeals the judgment following conviction by jury of evading a police officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), hit and run with property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)), and resisting, delaying or obstructing a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to 196 days in county jail with credit for time served, and formal probation for three years.

Ana A. (mother) appeals from jurisdiction and disposition orders of the juvenile court finding that her children, Alejandra Z., Alisson Z., and Nicholas A., were persons described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (section 300(b)), and removing the children from her custody. She contends that the juvenile court’s amendment of the allegation in the dependency petition stating that mother’s conduct places the children at risk of serious physical harm and danger, so that the allegation as sustained stated that the conduct merely “places the children at risk of harm,” necessarily means the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction under section 300(b) was error. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the juvenile court’s order finding jurisdiction, as well as its disposition order.

The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) took A.S. into protective custody at birth in November 2015. Approximately one year later, the juvenile court denied a request by maternal relatives to change his placement from the foster parents’ home, where A.S. had resided since February 1, 2016, to the relatives’ residence in Colorado. The juvenile court found a change in placement was not in A.S.’s best interests. Our review discloses no basis to reverse the court’s order, and therefore we affirm.

Appellants Douglas A. Linde and The Linde Law Firm (the Linde attorneys) challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss, pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), a cause of action in respondent Lauren Kattuah’s lawsuit against them. We reverse.

K.R. (mother), in propria persona, petitions for extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s orders issued at an uncontested 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a)(1)) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now two-year-old son, Elias. Mother offers an explanation as to why she was homeless toward the end of her reunification period, and asks that we direct the juvenile court to provide her reunification services. We conclude she forfeited any issues arising from the setting hearing and deny the petition.

The Board of Trustees of the California State University (CSU) appeals from the trial court's judgment granting in part the petition for writ of administrative mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) filed by Michael Johnson to challenge the State Personnel Board's (the Board) decision to terminate his employment as a police sergeant in the San Diego State University Police Department (the Department). The trial court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Johnson engaged in several acts of misconduct, but that the Board abused its discretion in ordering the termination of Johnson's employment as the penalty for that misconduct. In its appeal, CSU contends that the trial court erred in determining that termination was an excessive penalty.

Annabelle T. is the first child of father Jairo P. (father) and the eleventh child of mother Monica T. (mother). When mother tested positive for drugs at the time of Annabelle’s birth, hospital staff contacted the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). DCFS detained Annabelle and placed her in foster care. Father was incarcerated at the time of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing three months later, and the court denied father reunification services. Father petitioned for extraordinary writ relief, and we set an order to show cause. We find that the court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and therefore deny the petition.

Elizabeth Cherice Serna appeals from the judgment entered after a jury had convicted her of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The jury found true an allegation that she had personally inflicted great bodily injury. (Id., § 12022.7.) She was sentenced to prison for five years.
Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously (1) excluded the testimony of two defense witnesses, (2) limited appellant’s own testimony, and (3) instructed the jury pursuant to CALCRIM Nos. 3472, 361, and 372. The People claim, and appellant concedes, that at sentencing the trial court failed to impose mandatory fees. We amend the judgment to impose the omitted fees and affirm the judgment as amended.

Juries in separate trials convicted Cynthia Alvarez and Giovanni Gallardo of two counts of first degree murder with special circumstances and found true allegations that each personally used a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(3) & (15), 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The court sentenced Gallardo to life without the possibility of parole. The court sentenced Alvarez to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life, plus one consecutive year for the weapon enhancement for a total term of 51 years to life. They each appealed.
Alvarez and Gallardo each also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that they were deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We issued an order to show cause as to each petition.