CA Unpub Decisions

Casey M. (Father) appeals from jurisdiction and disposition orders in a dependency matter concerning his child, Ja.M. Father argues that the evidence does not support the juvenile court’s jurisdiction order, and that the court failed to state specific facts supporting its removal order as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (e). We affirm.

After the parties reached a plea agreement and defendant Brendan Harris entered a plea, the trial court imposed a sentence that included an upper term. On appeal, the parties agree Harris is entitled to resentencing under Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (S.B. No. 567). We agree with the parties and remand for resentencing.

This appeal involves a husband and wife who each sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against the other under the Domestic Violence Protection Act (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq). After a lengthy evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the husband’s request, granted the wife’s request for a no-harassment order, and ordered joint legal and physical custody of the couple’s children with an equal timeshare. The husband, M.N., now appeals, but because he fails to show that the trial court abused its discretion in making these orders, we will affirm.

Plaintiffs Joshua and Deysia Levin rented a home owned by the Clara Jackson Living Trust (Trust) from 2013 until 2019. After vacating the premises, plaintiffs sued Clara Jackson, individually and as trustee of the Trust, and Jackson’s daughter, defendant Diane May, who assisted Jackson in managing the property.
Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against Jackson, in her capacity as trustee, after Jackson’s death. Plaintiffs were granted summary judgment against May after she failed to respond to their discovery requests or file a written opposition to their summary judgment motion. On October 2, 2020, May filed a notice of appeal from both the default judgment and the order granting summary judgment. That same day, May also filed a motion seeking relief from the default judgment and summary judgment order on the grounds of mistake or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

Defendant Johnathan Christopher Coffer appeals from his convictions for sexually assaulting two women, one after the other, in an abandoned home on the night of January 12, 2018. He contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his post-trial motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) to replace his defense counsel, erred in giving the jury a flight instruction under Penal Code section 1127c because there was no evidence to support it, and erred in sentencing him to a one-year prior prison term enhancement sentence under section 667.5, subdivision (b) based on the retroactive application of a change in that statute. We affirm, except that we strike the one-year prior prison term enhancement and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

Defendant Johnathan Christopher Coffer appeals from his convictions for sexually assaulting two women, one after the other, in an abandoned home on the night of January 12, 2018. He contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his post-trial motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) to replace his defense counsel, erred in giving the jury a flight instruction under Penal Code section 1127c because there was no evidence to support it, and erred in sentencing him to a one-year prior prison term enhancement sentence under section 667.5, subdivision (b) based on the retroactive application of a change in that statute. We affirm, except that we strike the one-year prior prison term enhancement and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

In 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement calling for a stipulated sentence of 25 years in state prison, defendant Vu Minh Bui pleaded guilty to attempted murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187. ) He also admitted a firearm enhancement. (§ 12022.53, subd. (c).) On October 7, 2011, the trial court imposed a total term of 25 years in state prison (composed of five years for the attempted murder conviction and 20 years for the firearm enhancement), with credit for time served of 1,542 days.
In July 2020, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Secretary) sent a letter to the trial court recommending that it recall Bui’s sentence under former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) and resentence him.

A jury found defendant Darren Sanders guilty of first degree burglary and misdemeanor resisting an officer. The trial court sentenced Sanders to 17 years in prison, including an upper term of six years (doubled, due to a prior strike conviction) for the burglary and a consecutive five-year sentence enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction.
On appeal, Sanders contends that recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170 apply retroactively to his case and, thus, we should vacate his sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing consistent with current law. The Attorney General counters that remand is unnecessary because the record makes clear the trial court will not reduce Sanders’s sentence any further than it did at his original sentencing.
For the reasons explained below, we vacate Sanders’s sentence and remand the matter for resentencing. Sanders’s convictions are affirmed.

In 1994, Ralph Erving Dennis was convicted, along with a codefendant, of two counts of first degree murder. According to this court’s unpublished opinion which affirmed the convictions on appeal, the murders took place during the burglary and robbery of a home believed by the robbers to contain drugs and cash. The amended information filed against Dennis and his codefendant drew no distinction between their individual levels of culpability, alleging that each had committed two counts of first degree murder and describing both as a principal who was “vicariously armed with a firearm, and knew that another principal was personally armed” during the commission of the murders. At trial, the prosecutor made no attempt to prove the identity of the actual killer.
Dennis filed a petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, seeking to have his first degree murder convictions vacated and to be resentenced.

In 2012, Premier Commercial Bancorp, N.A. (Premier) entered into a settlement agreement with accountants Stephen H. Bennett and Richard T. Letwak, and their professional corporation Letwak & Bennett (L&B Corp.), resolving the latter parties’ claims they were owed payment for accounting services rendered on Premier’s behalf. Notwithstanding their assent to the settlement agreement’s provision for a full release of claims against Premier and its insurer, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (Progressive), Bennett and Letwak filed a lawsuit against Progressive based on the fee dispute.
Premier filed a cross complaint against Bennett, Letwak, and L&B Corp. (collectively, cross-defendants) for breach of contract, specific performance, and for declaratory relief.

Appellant, Alejandra C. (mother), mother of now 11-year-old E.M., appealed from the juvenile court’s November 9, 2021, orders denying her modification petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 requesting reunification services (section 388 petition) and terminating her parental rights. After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. This court granted mother leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
Mother filed a letter disputing evidence contained in the reports submitted for the various hearings but does not allege the juvenile court erred in denying her section 388 petition and in terminating her parental rights.

Defendant Thomas Kiner pled no contest to assault while confined in state prison and admitted a prior felony “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. Defendant also entered a waiver pursuant to People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247 (Cruz), whereby he was permitted to remain free of custody until his sentencing and the trial court indicated that, if defendant obeyed all laws and appeared for sentencing, it would impose a stipulated term of five years rather than the then maximum exposure of 13 years. Defendant failed to appear for sentencing. Roughly two years eight months after the date set for sentencing, defendant appeared. The trial court imposed the upper term of 12 years in prison.

Appellant and defendant Jose Alberto Hernandez pleaded no contest to possession of a weapon while an inmate in state prison (Pen. Code, §4502, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to two years, consistent with a negotiated disposition. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has filed a supplemental brief in pro. per. We affirm.

Petitioner Luke Steven Roberts seeks relief in habeas corpus for ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to preserve his claim that the evidence against him was the result of an illegal search. Roberts contends that, after the motion to suppress was denied at the preliminary hearing, counsel should have either renewed his suppression motion as provided by Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (i) , or filed a motion to dismiss under section 995, and failing to do so rendered counsel ineffective. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 (Strickland).) Roberts also avers that he would not have pleaded no contest if he had been informed that he would not be able to raise the meritorious search issue on direct appeal.
Roberts was charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)).