CA Unpub Decisions

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Charles J. Umeda, Judge. Affirmed.
Matthew C. Tymann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant A.B. (minor) appeals from a juvenile court’s order for victim restitution. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Minor’s aunt and uncle took legal guardianship of him when he was in 5th grade because his mother was addicted to drugs. In 2021, their four-year-old daughter disclosed that minor, who was 14 years old at the time, had been touching her private parts and having her touch his for several months. Minor admitted what he had been doing, but showed no remorse. His aunt and uncle told him he had to move out immediately. They decided to terminate the guardianship and paid an attorney $3,500 to begin the process.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Susanne S. Cho, Judge. Reversed.
Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) intervened when A.W., age two years, was transferred to his father K.W. (not involved in this appeal) for shared custody, with cigarette burns on his arm, which were apparently caused when the child ran into mother’s friend who was holding a cigarette.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Anthony R. Villalobos, Judge. Affirmed.
Michelle K. McCollum in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Michelle Kathleen McCollum, proceeding in pro. per., appeals the trial court’s order granting Christina Duran a three-year civil harassment restraining order against her. We affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Duran was appointed as an investigator for Miguel Bustamante in his criminal case. McCollum told Duran that she was Bustamante’s “legal runner” and that they were in a romantic relationship and intended to get married. Duran and McCollum began corresponding and speaking frequently about Bustamante’s case. Duran later learned, however, that McCollum was a prosecutorial witness and that there was a “gag order” in place. Duran asked McCollum not to contact her because they could no longer speak about the case.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Chad W. Firetag, Judge. Affirmed.
Earnest A. Davis, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Scali Rasmussen, John P. Swenson, and J. Stephen Lewis for Defendants and Respondents, Walter’s Auto Sales and Service, Inc. and Conrad Castillon.
Law Office of Mark W. Hansen and Mark W. Hansen for Defendant and Respondent, Government Employees Insurance Company.
Plaintiff Earnest A. Davis sued a car repair shop, its manager, and his car insurance company alleging they engaged in a ploy to damage his convertible Porsche so that he couldn’t afford to repair it and another customer of the repair shop could purchase it. On appeal, he challenges the trial judge’s rulings sustaining the defendants’ demurrers and dismissing his lawsuit in its entirety. We affirm. Davis’s claims against the repair shop defendants are time-barred, and he forfeited his challenge to the insurance company’s demurrer by not opposing it.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Claudia Silva, Acting County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Emily Harlan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
M.C. (Mother) appeals the orders in the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 dependency proceedings of her minor children, S.M. and A.M., summarily denying her section 388 petition to modify the juvenile court’s prior orders placing the children with their father, Sa.M. (Father). She contends the court abused its discretion because her section 388 petition made a prima facie showing that circumstances had changed during the three-week period since the issuance of the prior orders and that her requested orders placing the children with her instead was in their best interests. As explained post, we conclude the court did not abuse its

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Remanded with instructions.
Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Ksenia Gracheva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Oscar Moreno pled guilty to felony child abuse, grand theft of personal property, and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. The court stayed imposition of sentence and placed him on probation. After Moreno later admitted to four separate probation violations, the court sentenced him to an upper-term prison sentence and imposed several fines, fees, and assessments, which were stayed pending an ability to pay hearing.

Defendant Christian Calvin Krater pleaded no contest to injuring his child’s parent. In exchange for his plea, four additional charges were dismissed with a Harvey waiver. In March 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years in state prison.
Defendant appealed, and his appointed counsel asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

In a signed order filed on December 6, 2019, the trial court denied appellant Israel C. Salazar’s petition challenging the validity of a living trust. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from that order on August 25, 2020.
Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 180 days after the trial court’s appealable order was filed, the notice of appeal is untimely. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(C), (e).) Because we have no jurisdiction to consider this untimely appeal, we dismiss it on our own motion. (See In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1127; Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 170.)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard D. Miggins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
Hector Campos Salceda appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6). His appellate counsel declared he was unable to find any arguable issues and asked us to proceed under People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. Some appellate courts have held that an appeal from a postconviction order may be dismissed as abandoned if counsel has found no arguable issues and the defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. (See, e.g., People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1028, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278; Serrano, at p. 501.) After exercising our discretion to conduct a review of the merits of the appeal under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm the order

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Juvenile Court Referee. Conditionally affirmed and remanded with directions.
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________
Marco C., the presumed father of two-year-old Layla C., appeals the November 17, 2021 order terminating his parental rights, arguing only that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services breached its affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether Layla may have Indian ancestry as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subds. (a) & (b).) The Department acknowledges its compliance with its duty of inquiry may have been “imperfect,” but contends it made “painstaking efforts to com

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Conditionally affirmed and remanded with directions.
Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________
Cervando G., the presumed father of six-year-old Juan G., appeals the October 5, 2021 order terminating his parental rights, contending only that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services breached its affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether Juan may have Indian ancestry as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subds. (a) & (b).) The Department does not dispute it failed to conduct the required inquiry. Instead, it argues we lack jurisdictio

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvette Verastegui, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
Appellant Christian Noel Jones pled no contest to one count of first degree burglary for stealing a gaming console, among other items. Though the console was returned to the victim, it no longer worked. At the restitution hearing, the victim testified the gaming console was approximately one to two years old, and the People introduced a printout of a website the victim had visited, showing a new console could be purchased for $499. The same printout stated, “Used for $373.95.” Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the court abused its discretio

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Stern, Judge.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.
Mark Waecker for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Lee & Associates, Yong Bom Lee and Hyong C. Kim for Defendant and Respondent Sang Ur.
Safarian Choi & Bolstad, David C. Bolstad and Christopher A. Johnson for Defendants and Respondents Chris Yong Hong, Jamie Park, Audrey Jung & Propent Real Estate, Inc.
Prindle, Goetz, Barnes & Reinholtz, Jack R. Reinholtz and Gopal S. Patel for Defendants and Respondents Eon Escrow, Inc. and Deborah Koh.
Law Offices of Alex Cha and Alex Cha for Defendant and Respondent NMSI, Inc.
Christopher G. Weston, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Dismissed.
Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Jarrod Lee O’Neal appealed following the superior court’s denial of his resentencing petition under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief on appeal raising no issues and invoking People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Because neither appellant nor his counsel raised a cognizable claim of error, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano).)