CA Unpub Decisions

Caroline Barboza (petitioner) challenges the denial by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Fresno County of her “Petition for Constructive Filing of Notice of Appeal and Request for Certificate of Probable Cause … (F10905242) and for Consolidation of Cases on Appeal.” The relief sought by petitioner includes a request that she be granted a belated appeal in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F10905242.

A jury convicted defendant Juan Mario Hernandez of sexually molesting two of
his nieces, M. and E., and his nephew’s daughter, J., when the girls were under the age of
14. On appeal, defendant asserts evidentiary, instructional, and sentencing errors.
We find no errors requiring reversal of defendant’s convictions. However, we conclude
defendant has established sentencing error, and therefore shall reverse and remand for
resentencing.

Defendant and appellant R.J. (Father) is the father of K.J., who was two-and-a-half
years old on the date of the challenged order. Father appeals from the juvenile court’s
order declining to return K.J. to him on family maintenance at the 18-month review
hearing held on July 26, 2016. We affirm.

George and Perlita Newman appeal from an order of the superior court declining to consider their request for an injunction to prevent Quality Loan Service Corporation (Quality Loan) from foreclosing on their home. The Newmans contend that the superior court improperly considered written materials that Quality Loan submitted in opposition to their application and denied them opportunity to review or refute those materials, and that Quality Loan neither provided them with, nor recorded, a notice of default before noticing the sale of the property. On the record presented on appeal, we must affirm the order.

Defendant Jorge Gutierrez was tried and convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against two young boys, committed while he stayed with the family during leaves from his military service. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 145 years to life in prison and appealed. After appellate counsel filed a brief in accordance with theprocedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we requested supplemental briefing regarding the propriety of permitting the People to amend the information after the verdict had been rendered, and whether the elements of Penal Code1 section 667.61, the “One Strike” sentencing law pertaining to certain sexual offenses, were supported by substantial evidence. After supplemental briefing, we affirmed the convictions, concluded that the amendment of the information was improper, and modified the sentence on three counts. The modification was ordered because simple lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor did not qualify for an indeterminate

Andrea G. (Mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court declaring that her minor son D.M. is adoptable and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c).) We conclude that Mother has not established that the sibling relationship exception to adoption applies, and we affirm. (Id., subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)
Mother and A.M. (Father) are parents of two young children, D.M. and G.M. On February 25, 2015, the San Luis Obispo Department of Social Services (DSS) detained D.M. and G.M. from the care of Mother and Father due to their failure to provide for the children or to adequately supervise them. Each child has significant development delays and behavior problems. Mother was homeless and Father was incarcerated for violating a domestic violence protective order.

Jose Angel Barradas-Benitez (appellant) appeals an order imposing a probation condition following his guilty plea to receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) We conclude the trial court did not err by imposing a condition that prohibits his attendance at court proceedings where he knows a member of a criminal street gang is present, unless he is a party, a subpoenaed witness, or has prior permission from his probation officer. We affirm.

Lexington National Insurance Corp. (Surety) posted a bail
bond for a criminal defendant who did not appear for a pretrial
conference, and so the trial court ordered the bail forfeited. The
Surety successfully moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate
the bond. The County of Los Angeles appeals. Based on People v.
Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703 (Safety
National), we conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of
law in vacating the forfeiture and exonerating the bond.
Accordingly, we reverse the order.

Stephen B. Harrell appeals an order denying his motion for resentencing under Proposition 47. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) In 2013, he was convicted of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and the trial court found he had served six prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b) (hereafter “section 667.5(b)”). In 2015, three of his prior felony convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350), which were used to enhance his sentence under section 667.5(b), were reclassified as misdemeanors under Proposition 47. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court correctly ruled the reclassification of theses offenses from felonies to misdemeanors did not invalidate his section 667.5(b) prior prison term enhancements. We affirm.

In her appeal from the dispositional order of the juvenile
court, mother Michelle W. contends that the jurisdictional finding
that her children are defined by Welfare and Institutions Code
section 300, subdivision (a)1 is erroneous because the children
were not physically injured by the domestic violence between her
and the children’s father, Glenn W.2 We hold that the
jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (a) was legal
error and reverse it. However, mother does not challenge the
order declaring the children dependents under subdivision (b)(1)
of section 300, and so we affirm the jurisdictional order on that
basis.

Petition for writ of mandate to order superior court to hold jury trial on once-in-jeopardy plea. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, George G. Lomeli, Judge. Petition denied. Order striking once-in-jeopardy plea is affirmed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The order to show cause is discharged.

Cory Arnett appeals from the revocation of his probation and
execution of his previously suspended prison sentence. He contends
the trial court erred when it determined he had violated the terms
of his probation by failing to complete a drug treatment program
and failing to pay victim restitution. We agree and reverse the
court’s order.

Defendant and appellant Timothy Hobley (defendant) appeals from an order denying his motion and petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he requested reduction of the restitution fine imposed at sentencing in 2002. After defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. Defendant submitted a supplemental brief raising the same issues rejected by the trial court. We have reviewed defendant’s supplemental brief and the entire record, and find no merit to defendant’s contentions. Finding no other arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.

In June 2015, when she was eight months old, Isabella was removed from
mother’s care after mother was arrested on charges arising from a physical altercation
with her boyfriend. Witnesses identified mother as the aggressor, and her boyfriend
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. ustained
visible injuries, including bite marks on his nose and arm. Some witnesses
reported that mother was holding Isabella during the altercation.