CA Unpub Decisions

The juvenile court found A.T. and C.T., who are the daughters of M.T. (Father), came within the court’s jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b) & (c).) Father contends the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Father also asserts the juvenile court erred by finding reasonable efforts were made to prevent A.T.’s and C.T.’s removal. We affirm the judgment.

Desperate for money, defendant Jorge Alberto Esteban Cisneros and his cohort, David Mendez, entered a check-cashing business where defendant shot the clerk in the chest while Mendez seized $600 from the cash drawer as the victim lay dying. Security cameras recorded the coordinated robbery and shooting.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and second degree robbery (§ 211). With respect to both counts, the jury also found true that a principal was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1), and that defendant personally used a firearm causing death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). With respect to count 1, the jury further found true that the murder was committed while engaged in the commission of a robbery within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). The court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole plus a cons

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Steven Hamilton Sylvester of willful failure to appear in court (Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b)) and found true the allegation that he was released on his own recognizance when he failed to appear (§ 12022.1). A trial court sentenced him to a two-year split term, with 18 months to be served in county jail and the remaining six months to be served on mandatory supervision.
On appeal, defendant contends that the judgment should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of willfully failing to appear. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant Bret Lawrence Swortzel appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a plea of guilty to one count of first degree residential burglary with a person present (Pen. Code, § 459), admissions of two prior prison term enhancements (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)) and a prior strike (id., § 667, subds. (b)–(i)), and waiver of presentence custody credits. Consistent with the terms of the negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced him to a total term of 10 years in state prison and imposed fines and fees. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issu

On October 1, 2015, Mendocino County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of then-three-year-old C.T., alleging that medical professionals had determined she had vaginal injuries and herpes as a result of molestation by her father, R.T. (Father), and her paternal grandmother. The petition further alleged that C.T.’s mother, S.M. (Mother), and Father had an extensive child welfare history. The following month, another petition was filed alleging that C.T.’s half-brother, then-eight-year-old C.M., was at substantial risk of harm as a sibling, and that his biological father was in prison and unable to provide or arrange for his care.

This is the second appeal arising out of defendant’s conviction for felony animal cruelty. In the first appeal, A142665, we affirmed defendant’s conviction under Penal Code section 597, subdivision (b). Defendant now challenges restitution orders made to two entities–BrightHaven, Inc. (BrightHaven) and Oakland Animal Services (OAS)–for costs related to impounding and caring for the cats defendant neglected. Defendant claims BrightHaven was not entitled to a restitution award. As to OAS, defendant contends the award is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

John Hayes appeals from a judgment against him in his former landlord’s ejectment action. Hayes maintains that the parties’ rights must be determined under a 1997 lease that the trial court found had been superseded by a different lease in 2000. Hayes argues that he is entitled to judgment under the terms of the 1997 lease, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow him to introduce evidence on the meaning of the 1997 lease, and the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that he had the burden of proving the landlord’s dominant motive in evicting him was not a valid basis for eviction. We affirm.

Defendant Paulo Tabios Millendez pleaded guilty to one count of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child and two counts of annoying or molesting a child. (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a), 647.6, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted a three-year term of probation with one year in county jail. Among other probation conditions, the trial court ordered Millendez to participate in a sex offender management program as required by subdivision (b) of section 1203.067.
Millendez challenges several probation conditions on appeal. First, Millendez contends a probation condition mandated by section 1203.067(b)(3), requiring him to waive any privilege against self-incrimination as part of his participation in the sex offender management program, violates his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Second, Millendez contends the probation condition mandated by section 1203.067(b)(3), requiring him to participate in polygraph examination

A jury convicted Carlos Rojas-Vazquez (defendant) of misdemeanor domestic battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1) [count 1 – Maria C.]; all statutory references are to the Penal Code) as a lesser included offense of willful infliction of corporal injury (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) [count 2 - Maria C.]), attempted criminal threats (§§ 422, subd. (a), 664 [count 3 – Maria C.]) as a lesser included offense of the crim of criminal threats, and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a) [count 4 – Brenda S.]), and found he used a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) as to counts 3 and 4. Defendant appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. Because our review of the record discloses no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Ramiro Hurtarte of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI; Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), and driving with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)). Hurtarte admitted he previously suffered a felony DUI conviction within 10 years of the current offenses (Veh. Code, § 23550.5, subd.(a)). Hurtarte contends the trial court erred by excluding the preliminary hearing testimony of Robert Espalin, who testified at the prior hearing that he, not Hurtarte, drove the vehicle on the night of the incident. Hurtarte asserts the court erred in determining the defense failed to exercise reasonable diligence in securing Espalin’s attendance at trial. Alternatively, he contends his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to diligently pursue Espalin’s attendance at trial. We do not find these contentions persuasive. Consequently, we modify the judgment to correct a sentencing error, but otherwise affirm

A jury found defendant Randall Allen Miller guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child, his former step-daughter Tiffany.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court committed structural error by abdicating control of the readback process and failing to preserve a record of what portions of Tiffany’s testimony were read back; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct in her closing argument; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the alleged prosecutorial misconduct. We disagree and affirm.

Arnold Go was injured while working, and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., (Gallagher Basset) administered his workers’ compensation claim for Go’s employer. Ten months later, while Go was on temporary total disability due to his work injury, he was involved in a car accident. Go sued Gary Zimpel and Zimpel’s employer, Contra Costa County (County), for damages related to the car accident. Gallagher Bassett intervened as plaintiff in the lawsuit, seeking such sums as were paid in workers’ compensation benefits to Go for injuries caused by County defendants.
After County defendants and Go settled, County defendants moved for summary judgment against plaintiff-in-intervention Gallagher Bassett. The trial court granted summary judgment, and Gallagher Bassett appeals. Gallagher Bassett contends there are triable issues of fact as to whether the car accident caused any part of Go’s permanent disability.

A jury convicted defendant Jonathan Ismael Guzman of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187/189). The jury found true an allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and found true an allegation that defendant committed murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 50 years to life, consisting of a term of 25 years to life for the murder and a term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.

J.G., the biological father of E.G. and A.G., challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. We affirm.