CA Unpub Decisions

This case comes before us for review under the procedures prescribed in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442 (Wende). Luke Steven Roberts appeals following his no contest plea to possession of a firearm by a felon and admitted strike prior.

In 2005, a jury convicted petitioner Jose Pedro Guzman of the first degree murder of Paul Lemus (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1). The jury found true the special circumstance that petitioner committed the murder while engaged in the commission or attempted commission of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)). The trial court sentenced petitioner to a term of life without the possibility of parole and imposed a consecutive 25 year-to-life term for a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)) and a consecutive one-year prior prison term enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subd. (b). (People v. Guzman (Sept. 21, 2006, F048683) [nonpub. opn.] (Guzman).)
In 2019, petitioner filed a petition for resentencing on his murder conviction pursuant to section 1170.95.

Ruben Yabet Perez and three codefendants—Robert Ramos, Francisco Nava, and Stephen Lopez—engaged in a confrontation at a convenience store with E.D. and his girlfriend, C.A. The defendants yelled rival gang slurs at E.D.; Perez and Lopez threw drinks into E.D. and C.A.’s car; and Lopez grabbed E.D.’s shirt and struck him in the back of the head, scratching his neck. Perez also tried to grab E.D. E.D. drove away. E.D. saw a black car speeding toward him, heard two gunshots and glass breaking, and felt an impact on his car. He saw the black car on the left side of his car and the back passenger window rolled down.
The four defendants were charged with multiple offenses in relation to the incident. At trial, the prosecution presented expert testimony on street gangs, evidence of the defendants’ prior contacts with the police, and certified records of convictions of Norteño gang members as evidence of a pattern of gang activity to prove the street gang enhancements.

This is an appeal from an October 8, 2019 judgment of the Kings County Superior Court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.

A jury found Anthony Henry Balangue (defendant) guilty on two counts of attempted premeditated murder. He was accordingly sentenced to two consecutive indeterminate prison terms of seven years to life. The parole ineligibility periods were doubled to 14 years because of a prior strike conviction, resulting in an aggregate indeterminate sentence of 28 years to life. Defendant received a consecutive aggregate determinate term of 25 years based on gang allegation findings, firearm enhancements, and a status enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction.
Defendant’s claims on appeal include challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the wording of the jury instructions, and the competence of his trial counsel. We agree the gang findings lack evidentiary support, which also invalidates the firearm enhancements. A prior prison term enhancement not addressed at sentencing or in the parties’ briefs must also be reversed for insufficient evidence.

B.L. was detained and removed from his parents, K.S. (Mother) and A.L. (Father), shortly after birth. The juvenile court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights after a contested hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother and Father appeal from this order, arguing that the matter must be conditionally reversed and remanded to permit further inquiry into B.L.’s Native American ancestry as required under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The only ground for reversal raised by Mother and Father on appeal is that CFS failed to document whether it was successful in interviewing B.L.’s paternal grandmother to obtain relevant ICWA information. We conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s implied finding that CFS fulfilled its duties under ICWA and the related state statutes.

Following a prior appeal in this court (People v. Arredondo (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 950 [E064206]) and review in the California Supreme Court (People v. Arredondo (2019) 8 Cal.5th 694 [S244166]), defendant and appellant, Jason Aaron Arredondo, appeals from the August 12, 2020 judgment resentencing him to 22 years four months plus 200 years to life in state prison. In 2015, defendant was convicted in 14 counts of committing sex offenses against four minor girls—his three stepdaughters and one of their friends. In 2019, our Supreme Court reversed defendant’s convictions in counts 3, 4, and 5—the convictions involving defendant’s oldest stepdaughter. (People v. Arredondo, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 712.) On August 12, 2020, the court dismissed the charges in counts 3, 4, and 5 after the People said they would not retry them.

On January 29, 2019, a first amended information charged defendant and appellant James Edward Maljanian with one count of car theft under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 1). After a jury trial, on February 6, 2019, defendant was found guilty of car theft.
On July 30, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years and suspended the sentence upon successful completion of probation. The court imposed numerous conditions, including 365 days in jail, where defendant was eligible for the county jail weekend/work release program. The court also imposed (1) a $300 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4; (2) a $300 fine, suspended unless probation is revoked, under Penal Code section 1202.45; (3) a $40 court operations fee under Penal Code section 1465.8; and (4) a $30 conviction fee under Government Code section 70373. The court also ordered defendant to pay $727 for a presentence report, and $29 a month for mandatory supervision.

Plaintiffs and respondents Mike Monteiro and Manuel Monteiro, who do business as Endeavor Gold Dairy, a general partnership (Endeavor) sued defendant and appellant Craig Gordon, who does business as Gordon Hay, Inc. Dairy #1 and Gordon Hay, Inc. Dairy #3 (Gordon). There were two causes of action: (1) concealment; and (2) an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200). Gordon responded with an anti-SLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) and a demurrer. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion and sustained the demurrer with 20 days leave to amend. On appeal, Gordon contends the trial court erred by denying the anti-SLAPP motion. We affirm.

P.M. (Father) and J.L. (Mother, together the parents) appeal from an order issued at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing terminating parental rights to their daughter, E.M., and finding without prejudice that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Counsel for the parents and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) have conferred and agree that the Agency’s investigation under the ICWA was inadequate, under the relevant statutory and decisional authority. The parties filed a joint stipulation seeking the issuance of an immediate remittitur. We accept the stipulation, conditionally reverse, and remand for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA’s requirements.

A jury convicted Daniel Valdez Campos, Jr. of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), count 1), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 2), possession of a firearm after a felony conviction (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 4), and possession of a dirk or dagger (§ 21310, count 5), and found true a firearm enhancement allegation (§ 12022.53). Campos stipulated that he was convicted of a felony and admitted a serious felony and strike prior conviction. The trial court sentenced Campos to prison for 44 years to life on count 1 and imposed a consecutive term of 4 years for count 5. The court stayed sentences for counts 2 and 4 under section 654 and awarded Campos presentence custody credits. The court also imposed several fines and fees.
Campos raises several challenges to the judgment on appeal.

A jury convicted Emilio Ortiz Cervantes of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and made a true finding that Cervantes personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Cervantes admitted a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1), and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
The court sentenced Cervantes to the upper term of four years for the assault conviction, doubled because of the strike prior. The court added three years for the great bodily injury enhancement and five years for the serious felony prior, for a total determinate term of 16 years in prison.
Cervantes appeals challenging his sentence. Cervantes contends, and the Attorney General agrees, the case must be remanded for reconsideration of the term imposed for the assault conviction in light of newly enacted amendments to section 1170.

Stripped of its somewhat archaic terminology, a writ of mandamus or mandate is simply an order from a court telling someone to do something. And mandate is properly issued when an administrative agency with a duty to act refuses to take any action. But at the same time, it is well settled that a writ of mandate is not appropriate to compel an agency to exercise its discretion differently than it has already chosen to.
In this case, horse trainer Zvi Kriple filed an amended petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) to ban the use of whips during races and extend an existing prerace ban on administering antiinflammatory medication from 48 hours to 30 days before a race. CHRB is a public entity responsible by statute for adopting “rules and regulations that protect and advance the health, safety, welfare, and aftercare of racehorses.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19440, subd. (a)(1).)

The parties were married in June 1999, separated in March 2013, and divorced by judgment entered in May 2016. The marriage produced twins who emancipated post-judgment, and a minor, F.M., who is non-verbal autistic, and requires constant care. P.M. is F.M.’s care provider and has had primary physical custody of F.M.
In September 2020, R.M. filed his request for order seeking to reduce child and spousal support of orders, including a child support order that was subject to an annual bonus table under In re Marriage of Ostler & Smith (Smith/Ostler) (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 33. R.M. argued that beginning August 1, 2020, his annual salary was reduced from $144,000 to $115,000. He supported his request by submitting a letter from his employer stating, “COVID has placed significant financial limitations on the firm, requiring us to lower the base salary and increase the contingent pay of employees with significant sales duties.”