CA Unpub Decisions

Appellants North River Insurance Company (North River) and Bad Boys Bail Bonds (Bad Boys) appeal from a grant of summary judgment against them on a forfeited bail bond. They argue that the trial court should have continued the hearing on their motions for relief from forfeiture under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (j), and, alternatively, should have vacated forfeiture under section 1305, subdivision (f) because the criminal defendant was in “constructive custody” in Mexico. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment.

An information charged defendant Dave Arness Newman with the following crimes: making a false or fraudulent material statement for the purpose of obtaining compensation (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)(1); count 1), attempted perjury (Pen. Code, §§ 664/118; count 2), and concealing or failing to disclose an event affecting a right to an insurance benefit (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (b)(3); count 3). A jury convicted defendant on counts 2 and 3. The jury deadlocked on count 1. The trial court declared a mistrial on count 1, and it dismissed count 1. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for a period of five years.

On January 4, 2016, defendant Derrick Shawn McGowan was charged by information with two counts of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 213, subd. (b); counts 1&2), a felony, and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377), a misdemeanor. As to counts 1 and 2, it was alleged that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) that qualified as a strike under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (a)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
After declaring a doubt as to defendant’s mental competency to stand trial, the trial court appointed medical experts to examine him. Counsel stipulated to submit the matter on their reports. The trial court determined defendant was mentally competent to stand trial (§ 1368) and to understand the proceedings taken against him and that he was able to assist defense counsel to conduct his defense.

J.C. appeals from a judgment entered on his admission of violating probation. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 75 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has advised appellant that he may personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to the court’s attention, but appellant has filed no such brief.

Hector Joaquin Rocha, Jr., Philip Lopez, Jr., and Angel Delvillar (together appellants) were all charged with first degree murder of Julio Jimenez (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), robbery of an inhabited dwelling (§ 212.5, subd. (a); count 2), and robbery of Corina Vargas (§ 211; count 3). It was alleged the murder was committed during the course of a robbery and that all appellants were principals in the robbery (§ 189). It was further alleged that Lopez was at least 16 years old at the time of the offense. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (d)(1).) As to the robberies, it was alleged that they were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)); and that a principal in the robberies personally discharged a firearm causing the death of Jimenez (§§ 12022.7, 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)). On February 8, 2013, a jury convicted appellants as charged.

Defendant Anthony Cleo Billings appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. Defendant’s conviction relates to his involvement in a string of commercial burglaries in three relatively small towns, Susanville, Janesville, and Herlong. He was charged with 36 counts of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; counts 1-7, 9-31, 34-38, 40), three counts of felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); counts 8, 32-33), vehicle burglary (§ 459; count 39), and possessing stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 41). A prior prison term enhancement was also alleged (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). At the close of evidence, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for acquittal as to counts 1 through 4, 7, 20, and 39. Subsequently, a jury found defendant not guilty as to counts 18 and 19 but guilty on all remaining counts. Defendant admitted the prior prison term allegation. Defendant was sentenced to 24 years in prison.

The Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) appeals from the trial court’s order granting Charles David Wendell’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The OCDA argues the following: the court erred by granting the habeas petition without first issuing an order to show cause (OSC); Wendell was not in custody on his prior convictions; and Proposition 47 did not apply to the prior prison terms. Because we agree the trial court erred by granting relief without first issuing an OSC, we need not address the OCDA’s other contentions. We reverse the court’s order granting Wendell’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that minor R.I. committed two counts of lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts one & two) and two counts of lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury (§ 288, subd. (b); counts three & four), all based on a single incident. The victim is minor’s younger sister. After sustaining the petition, the juvenile court continued minor as a ward of the court and ordered him to serve 200 days in custody with credit for 200 days served and placed minor on probation with various conditions.

Mother is the parent of four children: E.D. (born in 2002); J.D. (born in 2004); A.D. (born in 2007); and Priscilla V. (born in 2015). The dependency court terminated Mother’s parental rights as to E.D. and J.D. in an earlier dependency case after Mother failed to comply with programs to address her drug abuse problems. Mother’s present appeal arises from a dependency case initially filed on behalf of her two younger children, A.D. and Priscilla. The dependency case came about after Priscilla tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine at birth. The dependency court dismissed A.D. from the case at the time of the detention hearing after a paternal relative agreed to file for legal guardianship. Accordingly, the arguments in Mother’s opening brief concern only Priscilla.

The Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) appeals from the trial court’s order granting Michael Alexander Paine’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The OCDA argues the following: the court erred by granting the habeas petition without first issuing an order to show cause (OSC); Paine was not in custody on his prior conviction; Proposition 47 did not apply to the prior prison term ; and if Proposition 47 applied to the prior prison term, Paine is entitled to resentencing not automatic sentence reduction. Because we agree the trial court erred by granting relief without first issuing an OSC, we need not address the OCDA’s other contentions. We reverse the court’s order granting Paine’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

On December 9, 2015, the Riverside County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that defendant and appellant K.R. (minor; a female born Aug. 2012) (1) willfully and unlawfully used force and violence upon Jane Doe 1 (JD1) under Penal Code section 242, on or about September 5, 2015 (¶ 1); and (2) willfully and unlawfully used force and violence upon Jane Doe 2 (JD2) under Penal Code section 242, on or about May 8, 2015 (¶ 2).

Veronica R. (mother) appeals from jurisdictional findings and an order requiring random drug testing. Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings, and the random drug testing order was an abuse of discretion. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) contends the jurisdictional findings are supported by substantial evidence, and the drug testing order was not an abuse of discretion.

On April 1, 2015, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602 alleging that defendant and appellant A.O. (minor; male, born July 1998) possessed methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code section 11377, case No. J259544 (first petition). On April 16, 2015, minor admitted the allegation and the juvenile court found that there was a factual basis for the admission, adjudged minor a ward of the court, and placed him on supervised probation.
On April 22, 2015, the prosecutor filed a subsequent petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (subsequent petition), using the same case number as the first petition, alleging that minor made criminal threats under Penal Code section 422, case No. J259544.

Petitioner M.P. is the father of E.H. and D.P., who are the subjects of these Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 dependency proceedings. M.P. brings this petition for an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452), seeking relief from orders of respondent court terminating his reunification services at the six-month review hearing and setting the matter for a section 366.26 permanency hearing. M.P. asserts the following three errors: (1) the court abused its discretion in terminating his reunification services before the 12-month review; (2) the court’s finding that real party in interest San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) provided reasonable services was unsupported by substantial evidence; and (3) the court erred in failing to address visitation when it terminated reunification services and set a permanency hearing. We reject M.P.’s contentions, and we deny his petition on the merits.