CA Unpub Decisions

Ernesto Quintero (Quintero), the adult son of plaintiffs and appellants Maria Leal and Nicholas Quintero (plaintiffs), died while in custody at a county jail. Plaintiffs attribute his death to failure to provide adequate medical care; Quintero had a history of asthma, heroin dependency, and addiction to other drugs.
In this appeal, plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s order sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer of defendants and respondents County of San Bernardino (the County), San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department (the Department), John McMahon (McMahon) , and Jeff Rose (Rose) to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (FAC). We find that plaintiffs should have been granted leave to amend with respect to their claims against all defendants except McMahon, and therefore reverse the judgment in part.

Defendant, Li Sung Se, appeals from a conviction following a jury trial of driving or taking a vehicle without consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), a felony. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on a misdemeanor methamphetamine possession charge and it was dismissed. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) The trial court found the evidence insufficient to support a prior prison term allegation. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) We modify the judgment to omit a $10 fine imposed under Penal Code section 1202.5, subdivision (a). We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

In a felony complaint, the District Attorney charged appellant in count one with dissuading a witness by force or threat (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1) and in count two with second degree robbery (§ 211). In connection with both counts, the complaint alleged that the crimes were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(4) [count 1], § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C) [count 2]).

Petitioner Jaime O. (father) is the noncustodial parent of Y.O., now six years old. Father has not lived with Y.O. since she was two years old. In April 2014, when she was three years old, Y.O. became a dependent of the juvenile court. She was first detained from her mother Miranda T. (mother) in October 2015. During the dependency, Marin County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) provided father supportive services for 18 months and then reunification services for 12 months.

Following a match of his DNA and a “cold case” investigation by the Oakland Police Department, defendant Charles Edward Luckett was charged and convicted of the 1993 murder of the manager of a local Sizzler restaurant. On appeal, defendant’s primary argument is that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, or in the alternative exclude key DNA evidence, based on the police department’s loss of additional, untested physical evidence collected at the crime scene and the lengthy pre-accusation delay. We find no basis for reversal on these or any of the additional arguments presented on appeal. Defendant has correctly identified two clerical errors in the abstract of judgement so that we shall affirm the judgment and remand for modification of the abstract of judgment.

Neftali Zambrano Sanchez was convicted by a jury of sodomy of a child 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a); all further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal code; count 1) continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 (§ 288.5; subd. (a); count 2) and two counts of forcible lewd act on a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (b); counts 3, 4).

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nancy Wieben Stock (retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) and Robert J. Moss, Judge. Judgment reversed and remanded with directions. Motions for additional findings and for taking new evidence on appeal and request for judicial notice denied.
Thomas Vogele & Associates, Thomas A. Vogele, and Timothy M. Kowal, for Defendants, Cross-defendants, and Appellants.

A jury convicted appellants, Jesus Duran and Michael Giron, of possessing a sharpened instrument while confined in a penal institution. (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a).) Although each appellant separately committed this crime, the two appellants were tried together.
The trial court determined that the prior strike conviction and prior prison term enhancement alleged against Duran were true and that the prior strike conviction alleged against Giron was true. The trial court sentenced each appellant to the upper term and doubled it due to the strike prior. The court also added one year to Duran’s sentence for the prior prison term.

Following a shooting at a shopping mall in Visalia, codefendants Adrian Esquer and Anthony Alex Hanson were arrested and charged with six counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) (counts 1–6). During trial, the prosecutor amended the information to add two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)) (counts 7 & 8). Esquer and Hanson were convicted by jury on all eight counts. The jury also found true that the attempted murders of four victims were willful, deliberate and premeditated (counts 1, 3, 4 & 5) and the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1) (counts 1–8). In addition, the jury found true the attached firearms and great bodily injury (GBI) enhancements (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, 12022.53, subds. (b)–(e)(1).

W.F. (Father), the father of G.F. and W.F. Jr., claims the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering the case transferred from San Francisco City and County to Sonoma County, where the children were living with their mother (Mother). He asserts there was no change in circumstances warranting the transfer, and no evidence the transfer was in the children’s best interests. We affirm.

The juvenile court denied O.T.’s (the minor) motion to suppress, and he admitted misdemeanor possession of metal knuckles (Pen. Code, § 21810). The court declared the minor a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placed him on probation with various conditions.
The minor appeals. He contends: (1) the court violated his constitutional due process rights by “assum[ing] the role of the prosecutor” and questioning the prosecution witness at the suppression hearing; (2) the court erred by denying his motion to suppress; and (3) certain probation conditions are vague and overbroad. We modify one probation condition. As modified, we affirm.

S.W. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to terminate previously ordered reunification services with her daughter, L.W. (minor), on the ground that mother was suffering from a mental disability that rendered her incapable of utilizing those services (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(2)). Mother contends that termination of her reunification services violated federal law prohibiting discrimination in child welfare proceedings against a parent with a mental disability and was not supported by substantial evidence. Mother also contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that termination of her reunification services was in minor’s best interests and that the Santa Cruz County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) provided mother with reasonable services during the reunification period.

Aaron Joseph Bonilla pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon after his motion to suppress the firearm was denied. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendants and Appellants Larry Fradiue (Fradiue) and Deonta Walker (Walker) (sometimes collectively, defendants) were charged along with Randy Rollins (Rollins) and Raymond Fradiue (R. Fradiue) by amended information with special circumstances murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subds. (a)(17)(A) & (a)(22); count 1); second degree robbery (§ 211; count 2); and active gang participation (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3). The amended information also alleged gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d) & (e)(1)) enhancements in counts 1 and 2 and separately alleged Fradiue personally and intentionally discharged, or personally used, a firearm in connection with each of the firearm enhancements.