CA Unpub Decisions

A multi-agency police investigation into drug trafficking and other crimes committed in Santa Clara County by Norteño criminal street gangs, operating under the umbrella of the Nuestra Familia prison gang, led to the indictment of appellant James Gonzalez and 23 others. A jury convicted Gonzalez of numerous crimes including street terrorism, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, dissuading a witness or victim by force, robbery, burglary, criminal threats, conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine for sale, and illegal possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury also found true several sentence enhancements. The trial court sentenced Gonzalez to 14 years to life in prison, consecutive to 38 years.
On appeal, Gonzalez raises 16 claims of error.

This is an appeal by Carrie P., the maternal grandmother (Carrie or the grandmother), of the juvenile court’s denial of her petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. After Carrie became caregiver to the child, Jacob D., at the outset of dependency, he was removed when her placement application was initially denied. She eventually successfully challenged the denial. She filed the instant petition, but by the time it was heard, Jacob had been with his current caregivers, who wanted to adopt him, for over two years. While the court found that Carrie would be a great caretaker, it determined that Jacob’s need for stability was paramount and that removing him from his potential adoptive parents would not be in his best interest. The court, therefore, denied the petition, and ultimately terminated parental rights, selecting adoption as the permanent plan for Jacob. Carrie now appeals.

This dependency case involves Y.D. (Mother) and her two children. Her daughter, L.L, is currently 13 years old, and her son, K.E.L., is 16 years old. Mother has sole physical custody of both. L.L. lives with Mother while K.E.L. attends boarding school in Illinois and lives there during the school year. Previously, Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) investigated Mother in 2017 and 2020 for allegations concerning physical and emotional abuse. These prior investigations uncovered information suggesting Mother was suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness, as she exhibited paranoid and delusional behavior and was abnormally aggressive. However, SSA concluded these prior allegations of abuse were inconclusive or unfounded.
The current investigation arose after L.L. expressed suicidal thoughts and engaged in self-harm. She told SSA her emotional instability was caused by Mother’s erratic behavior and pressure to excel in school.

Appellant Valley Gardens Property Investments, L.P., (Valley Gardens) appeals from the court’s dismissal of its petition for writ of mandamus (petition) in a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit and denial of its request for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)). We conclude the court properly dismissed the petition when Valley Gardens failed to comply with Public Resources Code section 21167.4 and file its hearing request within 90 days of filing the petition. We further conclude the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Valley Gardens’ request for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). Accordingly, we affirm.

Plaintiff Christienne M. Black appeals from the trial court’s order granting a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Her lawsuit in this case alleges causes of action based on defendant Miriam J. Galindo’s (Galindo) involvement as a therapist in Black’s divorce case involving a dispute about the custody of her children.
The trial court in this case concluded Black’s complaint allegations—which essentially assert Galindo’s reports unlawfully led to the temporary deprivation of two of her three children—are based on activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute (thus meeting the first prong of the test for anti-SLAPP protection). The burden then shifted to Black who failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on her claims because the litigation privilege applies to the alleged conduct. We review the order de novo and affirm.

Jose Felix Zepeda appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying his Penal Code section 1170.95 petition. He argues the court erred by denying his section 1170.95 petition in his absence without issuing an order to show cause and conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Attorney General asserts the court properly denied the petition because the jury found true a felony-murder special circumstance and Zepeda was therefore ineligible for section 1170.95 relief as a matter of law. This is not the first time we have had to decide whether a jury’s true finding on a felony-murder special circumstance prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark) rendered a defendant ineligible for relief under section 1170.95 as a matter of law. We concluded it did not in People v. Gonzalez (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 420 (Gonzalez), review granted August 18, 2021, S269792.

Defendant Charlie Mena is an admitted gang member. In April 2016, he was involved in a gang-related shooting at a public park in Anaheim. Among other charges, he was convicted of three counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, possessing a firearm in a school zone, and discharging a firearm in a school zone. Various enhancements were also found to be true, including a gang enhancement. There is only one contested issue on appeal. Mena seeks reversal of two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, arguing there is insufficient evidence showing he intended to kill more than one person. We disagree. There is sufficient evidence showing Mena shot at a group of rival gang members with intent to kill.
Mena also makes a series of arguments that the Attorney General does not contest. First, his conviction for possessing a firearm in a school zone must be reversed because it is necessarily included in his conviction for discharging a firearm in a school zone.

Daniel Bonilla appeals from his convictions for attempted murder and related crimes and enhancements. The information charged Bonilla, a minor at the time the offenses were committed, with one count each of attempted murder with deliberation and premeditation (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a); count 1), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3). In connection with counts 1 and 2, the information further alleged the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), Bonilla personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Lastly, the information alleged Bonilla personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) in the commission of count 1.

We appointed counsel to represent Dominic Louis Lebron on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on Lebron’s behalf.
Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.)
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal.

On May 12, 2020, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency filed dependency petitions pertaining to L.R., Z.R., and G.R., who were 16, 12 and 10 years of age at the time, respectively. The petition alleged the children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness due to appellant Patricia R.’s (mother) failure to supervise or protect the child adequately, and due to her inability to provide regular care due to the parent’s mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)(1).)
On May 12, 2020, mother’s social worker filed “Parental Notification of Indian Status” forms on behalf of mother, indicating she is or may be eligible in the “Cherokee” and/or “Nahuatl” tribes.
At the detention hearing on May 13, 2020, the court found ICWA “may” apply based on mother’s notifications. The court “trailed” the remainder of the detention hearing to the next day.

In 1985, a jury convicted Cydrick Davis of first degree murder and robbery. In 2019, he filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, which the trial judge denied.
On appeal, Davis argues the judge erred by conducting inappropriate factfinding, failing to give proper deference to the factual allegations in his petition, and finally denying the petition for failing to show a prima facie case. The People correctly concede this was error. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial judge to hold an evidentiary hearing on his petition.

Daelani Griffin filed a petition for a harassment restraining order against Julian Noel Stone. She claimed Stowe made threatening and insulting social media posts about her and induced others to do so. The trial court denied the petition. It commented, among other things, “This stuff . . . doesn’t even come close to the kind of harassment that’s required for a civil restraining order. You guys . . . have a spat on Facebook. . . . Just block them and move on. . . .”
Griffin appeals. She contends that the trial court “was not acting as a neutral based on the law.” She also claims that Stowe’s conduct was civilly and criminally unlawful.
We will hold that the trial court could properly find that Griffin had not proven the alleged harassment by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court’s comments were proper; they show that it ruled based on the appropriate legal standard.

Layken Marie Conner appeals an order granting the request of her ex-husband Ryan Allan Connor to move their daughter from California to Delaware. Layken challenges the family court’s exclusion of certain evidence, its weighing of factors relevant to the decision on the move-away request, its order that she pay the travel costs of visitation, and its cession of jurisdiction to the Delaware courts. We modify the move-away order by striking the portion ceding jurisdiction and affirm the order as modified.

John and Kara C. Fraser married on June 4, 1999 and separated on December 15, 2014, for a marriage of 15 years and six months. They have two minor children together. John filed for dissolution of marriage on December 16, 2014. The marriage was deemed to be of a long duration.
Kara met John Kennedy, Jr. in October 2014 while she was still married to John. They began a relationship in mid-2015. During the dissolution matter, Kara was pregnant with Kennedy’s child, who was born on May 31, 2016.
Through Judicate West, retired Judge Christine Goldsmith presided over a trial on certain reserved issues over a 5-day period between February 22, 2017 and March 3, 2017. Among other issues, Judge Goldsmith addressed spousal support. As such, Judge Goldsmith explained in the written judgment (Judgment) as follows: