CA Unpub Decisions

Leticia C. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency planning and legal guardianship orders relating to her four children, contending the court failed to comply with the notice procedures mandated by the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). Finding error in the manner in which statutorily required notices were given, we conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s orders, and remand for compliance with ICWA notice requirements.

Defendant Ralph Lopez appeals the judgment following his conviction for murder, assault with a firearm, and several counts of attempted premeditated murder, along with various firearm and gang enhancements. He argues insufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that he caused great bodily injury with a firearm as required to impose the 25-years-to-life enhancement in Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) for one of the attempted murder counts. We disagree. He also contends—and respondent agrees—the 10-year gang enhancements must be stricken and the abstract of judgment must be corrected. We will strike the gang enhancements and direct the trial court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment. We affirm the judgment as modified.

Ten plaintiffs, all minors, sued defendants First Lutheran Church, Latonya Dollison, and Victoria Leggette, alleging they sustained personal injuries while attending First Lutheran’s preschool. The cases were consolidated for purposes of discovery, and all plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel, Owen, Patterson & Owen, LLP (OP&O). This appeal concerns a $6,500 discovery sanctions order against OP&O. We conclude that the matter properly is before us under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(12), and affirm the order of the trial court because no abuse of discretion is evident from the record. Defendants’ motion for sanctions is denied.

Heriberto Rivas appeals from the judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), and found true the allegation he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b). After the jury returned its verdict, Rivas admitted he served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and also admitted he suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The court sentenced Rivas to state prison for six years plus 25 years to life.

A jury convicted defendant Lee M. Trahan of assault on a child causing death and manslaughter in connection with the death of his six-week-old twin daughter Willow. (Pen. Code, §§ 273ab, subd. (a), 192, subd. (a).) The jury found his wife, Jessica Trahan, guilty of misdemeanor child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Lee to summary probation on the child abuse homicide conviction and to 11 years in prison on the manslaughter conviction.

Defendant Moses Jesse Duron appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126, which was enacted by voters in 2012 as Proposition 36. Defendant is serving a life sentence imposed in 2002 based on his plea of no contest to a third strike (being a felon in possession of a firearm). His petition asserted he is eligible for a reduced sentence because possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is not a serious or violent crime, but the trial court denied his petition, concluding defendant is not eligible for resentencing because he used a firearm during the commission of the crime for which he is serving a life sentence, and in any event, he poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

G.D. (Mother), mother of two-year-old Mya O., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights and ordering adoption as the permanent plan, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends these orders must be reversed because the court’s finding that she failed to establish the applicability of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption was not supported by substantial evidence. We shall affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

A jury convicted Lewis Erving Lee of 77 felonies, including multiple counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)), elder theft (§ 368, subd. (d)(1)), identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), and money laundering (§ 186.10). The court sentenced Lee to 15 years in state prison and ordered him to pay over $1.3 million in victim restitution (§ 1202.4).
Lee appeals. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support the money laundering convictions, the identity theft convictions, and two elder theft convictions. Lee argues we should reverse all but one of the grand theft convictions against each victim or set of victims. Also, Lee asserts we should modify the restitution order and amend the judgment.

T.L. (Mother) is the mother of M.C., who was born and taken into protective custody in April 2014. The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) took protective custody of M.C. after Mother was arrested on a warrant for not reporting a past criminal charge to her probation officer and for narcotics use.
Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends (1) the juvenile court did not comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and (2) the juvenile court erred by finding the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) benefit exception (the parental benefit exception) did not apply. S.L., who is M.C.’s maternal cousin, appeals from the order denying his request for placement under the relative preference of section 361.3. S.L. contends the juvenile court erred by not having him evaluated for placement under section 361.3, subdivision (a) and by den

Defendant Vegas Batallya Bray appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury convicted her of first degree murder in the death of her ex-boyfriend. On appeal, Bray contends that the trial court's jury instruction on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter was incomplete, in that it omitted the elements of the offense. We conclude that even if we presume that the trial court's instruction was erroneous, Bray is unable to demonstrate that she suffered prejudice as a result of the claimed error. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appointed counsel for defendant Aileen Marie Pena has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the record, we discovered a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment with regard to fines. We shall order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the fines imposed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
A jury convicted defendant Stanley Tillman of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition on a cohabitant (count one; Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)); rape (count two; § 261, subd (a)(2)); making a criminal threat (count three; § 422); and felony false imprisonment (count four; § 236). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted a prior juvenile strike adjudication.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jessie Mercado asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In July 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine. The trial court granted him three years’ probation, conditioned on his serving 180 days in county jail.

A jury convicted defendant Kawaun Marques Lloyd of first degree murder and related offenses. At trial, two of his accomplices testified for the prosecution. On appeal, he contends the accomplices’ testimony was insufficiently supported by corroborating evidence. He also contends the abstract of judgment must be corrected to delete a fine that was never imposed. We agree with the second contention. We will order a corrected abstract and otherwise affirm.