CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Luis Alvarez appeals after a jury found him guilty of the first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189) of Michael Maynard. The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life.
Defendant contends that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to present a defense when the trial court excluded exculpatory hearsay evidence; insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding of premeditation and deliberation; and the trial court erred when it did not instruct the jury sua sponte on involuntary manslaughter. Defendant also requests that we review the sealed transcript of an ex parte hearing “with a general view to [his] right to counsel both below and on appeal [citations], and to [his] right to due process [citations].” The Attorney General contends that the hearsay evidence proffered by defendant was properly excluded; substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict; and involuntary manslaughter instructions were not required.

A jury found defendant Thomas Andrew Triplett guilty of second degree murder and found he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in commission of the offense. The trial court found he had suffered two prior serious felony convictions. The court sentenced Triplett to an aggregate term of 45 years to life consecutive to 11 years in prison.
Triplett raises numerous claims on appeal. First, Triplett contends the trial court erred by excluding testimony from a defense expert witness about “lifestyle and situational factors” that put the victim at high risk of becoming a victim of violent crime. Second, Triplett contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense and defense of others. Third, Triplett contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on a heat of passion theory of voluntary manslaughter.

Following heavy rainfall, water seeped through the ceiling of a building under lease for use as a restaurant and caused significant damage to the kitchen area. The culprit was the condition of the 37 year old roof, which had a useful life, at most, of 25 years, and a questionable maintenance record. When the rains came, a plastic membrane was being installed over the roof structure, but work had stalled because the landlords and the tenant could not reach an agreement about which was responsible for disassembling and removing various items of equipment and debris from the roof to permit the roofing work to be completed. And life being what it is the rainwater leaked into the building through the very section of the roof over which the membrane had not been installed.

Appellant Samantha H. (mother) is the mother of children D.S., S.S., and R.J., who are subjects of a dependency case. Mother challenges the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested selection and implementation hearing that resulted in mother’s parental rights being terminated. Mother contends the juvenile court erred by considering inappropriate factors when it failed to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights. We disagree and affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

Appellant M.T. (mother) is the mother of six-year-old Y.T., the subject of this dependency matter. Mother seeks reversal of the juvenile court’s orders issued at a selection and implementation hearing that resulted in mother’s parental rights being terminated. Mother contends the juvenile court’s appointment of a guardian ad litem for her at the 12-month review hearing was made in error, and therefore all subsequent orders, beginning with the orders terminating her reunification services, should be reversed. Mother contends this appointment violated her rights to due process because she was denied the ability to work directly with her attorney. We affirm.

In 1992, appellant Frank Juarez was convicted by jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)). The jury also found true a special circumstance alleging that the murder was committed during the commission of a kidnapping (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). Juarez was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole.
Following the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437), Juarez filed a section 1170.95 petition for resentencing. The Fresno County Superior Court denied Juarez’s petition without appointing counsel or requesting additional briefing. On appeal, Juarez contends the court prejudicially erred by denying his petition without appointing counsel and providing an opportunity for full briefing. We affirm.

Appellant and defendant Jerry Jayvon Whitehead pleaded no contest to multiple felony offenses and was sentenced to state prison. On direct appeal, we affirmed his convictions and remanded the matter for the trial court to determine whether to exercise its discretion to dismiss the five-year term imposed for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667, (a)), and consider an objection to his ability to pay the fines and fees based on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). On remand, the court ordered the fines and fees stricken but denied his motion to dismiss the prior serious felony enhancement.
In this appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm.

In this appeal, an ex-husband contends the renewal of a 2013 restraining order issued under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, §§ 6200–6460) is invalid because the restraining order expired before the renewal order was entered. As described below, based on our independent review of the appellate record, we conclude the restraining order in question did not expire and, as a result, the trial court had the authority to renew it.
We therefore affirm the order renewing the restraining order.

Appellant Devin Trevone Lamar entered a plea of no contest to two criminal cases pending against him. The factual basis for both pleas was made pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. On appeal, Lamar contends the trial court failed to make sufficient inquiries into the factual basis for his pleas, as is required by Penal Code section 1192.5. We affirm.

Defendant Hector Jose Torres was driving while under the influence of alcohol when he made an unsafe and illegal U-turn in front of a vehicle driven by Faqir Singh Kang (Singh), causing a motor vehicle accident. Singh initially appeared fine, but after arriving at the hospital he suddenly stopped breathing and was unable to be resuscitated. A jury convicted defendant of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), felony driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); count 2), and felony driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b); count 3). The jury also found true allegations defendant suffered three prior convictions related to driving under the influence within 10 years of the charged offense (Veh. Code, § 23550). The trial court imposed a 15-years-to-life term for count 1 and a concurrent term of two years for count 2; a term of two years was imposed and stayed for count 3.

Francisco Antonio Nava and three codefendants—Robert Ramos, Stephen Lopez, and Ruben Perez—engaged in a confrontation at a convenience market with E.D. and his girlfriend, C.A. They yelled rival gang slurs at E.D.; Lopez and Perez threw drinks into E.D. and C.A.’s car; and Lopez grabbed E.D.’s shirt and struck him in the back of the head, scratching his neck. Perez also tried to grab E.D. E.D. drove away. When E.D. stopped at an intersection, he saw a black car speeding toward him, heard two gunshots and glass breaking, and felt an impact on his car. He saw the black car on the left side of his car and a man pointing his hand out of the back passenger window.
The four defendants were charged with multiple offenses in relation to the incident.

In 1991, a jury convicted defendant Andrew Rick Lopez of second degree murder and the jury found true an enhancement allegation that defendant used a dangerous and deadly weapon in the commission of the crime (a knife) (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Defendant also admitted he served a prior prison term for purpose of a section 667.5 enhancement.
After the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The superior court appointed the public defender to represent defendant in the petition proceedings. A few months later, defendant filed a “Notice of Lack of Meaningful Contact From Appointed Counsel” in pro se, requesting a hearing on whether he was entitled to a new attorney. He asserted defense counsel failed to make any meaningful or substantial contact with him since being appointed.

Following a search of her apartment that yielded weapons and drugs, Rosaura Machado Aguilar was tried and convicted of felony child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a), count 1), possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code § 11378, count 2), possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (id., § 11370.1, subd. (a), count 3), and possession of a smoking device (id., § 11364, count 9, a misdemeanor). As to count 2, the jury additionally found that Aguilar was personally armed with a firearm in possessing the drugs for sale. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c).)
Aguilar raises several claims on appeal. She first contends the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on misdemeanor child abuse, a lesser included offense on count 1.

Andre V. appeals a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) that Tomi B. obtained against him. Andre claims there was no proof of domestic violence and Tomi sought the DVRO in retaliation for his moving out of their home. Because Andre has not provided an adequate record or a cogent legal argument for reversal, we affirm.