CA Unpub Decisions

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Valerie H. (Mother) and Luis F. (Father) with respect to their two daughters, Elena and Andrea. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Both Mother and Father appeal from that order, arguing the court erred in determining the beneficial relationship exception inapplicable. Father also maintains the juvenile court failed to ensure compliance with the notice and inquiry provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We affirm.

Defendant Russell Lamar Kintner was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)), and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court erroneously admitted expert testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. He also contends the trial court erred by imposing a fine in the amount provided for under Penal Code section 290.3 at the time of his sentencing rather than the lesser amount provided for under that statute at the time his offense was committed.

Esiquiel Deleon, Jr. (defendant) and Anthony Montano were jointly charged with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) [count 1]); receipt of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a) [count 2]); grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a) [count 3]); and receipt of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a) [count 4]). Defendant was separately charged with resisting a police officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1) [count 6]); and possessing burglary tools (§ 466 [count 7]). In connection with counts 1 through 4, the information alleged defendant was previously convicted of active gang participation (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), a qualifying strike under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)); and served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Later, counts 1 and 2 were set aside pursuant to section 995.

On August 9, 2016, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Terrill Tramaine Thompson with one count of making criminal threats in violation of Penal Code section 422, subdivision (a).
On August 17, 2016, defendant pled guilty to count 1 in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 16 months, pursuant to a plea agreement. Defendant signed an appeal waiver as part of the plea agreement.

Farrah Pirahanchi and her mother filed a lawsuit five years after the mother's home was sold in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. They sought to regain the mother's ownership of the property and/or recover damages for the loss of the home. The court sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend. Representing herself on appeal, Pirahanchi challenges the judgment as to one of the defendants, Woodcrest Hills Homeowners Association (Association), which purchased the property at a second foreclosure sale. Pirahanchi raises a multitude of contentions, none of which have any merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

When defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (HSBC) notified plaintiff Stanley P. Berman in writing that HSBC was denying his application for a loan modification, HSBC told him he had 15 days to appeal the denial. Under the law, however, Berman actually had 30 days to appeal. (See Civ. Code, § 2923.6, subd. (d) [“[i]f the borrower’s application for a first lien loan modification is denied, the borrower shall have at least 30 days from the date of the written denial to appeal the denial”].)

A jury found defendant Rafael Medina guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter, robbery, and active participation in a criminal street gang. The jury also found true the allegations defendant committed the attempted voluntary manslaughter and robbery offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members, and defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the crimes. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 25 years in prison.

Defendant Dale Scott Aichlmayr pleaded no contest to four misdemeanors and a felony. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on formal probation, and ordered him to time-served in the county jail (326 days). After defendant repeatedly violated his probation, the trial court imposed sentence and ordered defendant to serve an aggregate term of two years in state prison. The court awarded defendant 274 days of custody credit.

Defendant Taejuan M. Jackson ended a long-simmering feud with Juwan Howard by shooting him in the chest, killing him. A jury convicted Jackson of first degree murder for Howard’s death. Jackson contends on appeal that insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that he killed Howard with premeditation and deliberation, thus requiring us to reduce the conviction to second degree murder. We find his contention without merit and affirm the judgment.

After the trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence brought by defendant Lino Jose Medina, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court subsequently denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed defendant on probation for five years.
Defendant now contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the initial encounter between defendant and the police was an illegal detention, not a consensual encounter; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his no contest plea because the City Attorney produced a supplemental police report two days after he entered the plea and he could have used the report to impeach a witness at the hearing on his suppression motion; and (3) if the Attorney General argues defendant’s second contention is forfeited for failure to raise it in the trial court, defendant’s trial counsel provided in

The People appeal from the trial court’s order granting defendant Michael Nunally’s motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. (Pen. Code, § 1238, subd. (a)(3).) The People concede that members of the jury engaged in misconduct by considering extraneous information--the contents of a cell phone that was mistakenly admitted into evidence--during their deliberations after being admonished not to do so, but argue that the trial court erred in concluding that defendant was prejudiced by the misconduct. We discern no abuse of discretion and shall affirm.

The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition alleging that one-month-old Juliette N. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). Joaquin J. was alleged to have a history of escalating, aggressive, and threatening behavior toward Juliette N.’s mother, Melissa N., including incidents in which Joaquin J. stalked, videotaped, and threatened her; and also to have threatened to kill Melissa N., Juliette N., and Melissa N.’s family. This conduct was the subject of the section 300, subdivision (a) allegation and one subdivision (b) allegation.

Plaintiff Alvin Kin was 13 years old when he went skiing on a slope for intermediate skiers, failed to successfully negotiate a turn, crashed into a signpost, and suffered serious injury. His father, defendant Gordon Kin (father), had taken plaintiff on the ski trip. Father had asked his adult brother, defendant Johnson Kin (uncle), and his adult cousin, defendant John Sun (cousin), to take plaintiff skiing that day.
Through a guardian ad litem, who is plaintiff’s mother and who was formerly married to plaintiff’s father, plaintiff filed a negligence action against father, uncle, and cousin. Each defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s action was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. Defendants argued that they owed no duty to protect plaintiff against risks inherent in skiing, and that they did not engage in reckless conduct or otherwise increase the risks to plaintiff. The trial court granted the motions and entered judgments in f

In 1998, defendant/appellant Antonio Castaneda Rodriguez entered into a plea agreement whereby he pled to one count of violating Health and Safety Code section 11352, sale of the controlled substance heroin, in exchange for dismissal of other charges and an indicated sentence of formal probation. In 2015, defendant moved to vacate his conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5, subdivision (b), for failure to advise of immigration consequences prior to entering his plea. The superior court denied the motion to vacate and defendant appeals. We affirm.