CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Gregory Dean Jolley raises contentions of trial error following his conviction of burglary and attempted burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 664, 459).[1]
For the reasons discussed below, the judgment is vacated and the matter is returned to the trial court, with directions, for further proceedings.

This matter is the latest chapter in an ongoing custody dispute—described as “incredibly high conflict” in the family law court—between Laura E. (mother) and Joshua T. (father) with respect to their son Jeremiah E. (born September 2008). Ultimately, the Solano County Health and Social Services Department (Department) became involved, filing a dependency petition in September 2015, after Jeremiah reported that father had hit him with a belt. Once dependency was established in March 2016, both parents appealed, challenging certain aspects of the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. Father also contested the dispositional order which removed Jeremiah from his custody and placed the minor with mother under a family maintenance plan. While this appeal was pending, in August 2016, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and granted sole legal and physical custody of Jeremiah to mother. The Department then filed a motion to dismiss in this court, arguing that

In this consolidated appeal, appellant Bryson Borg appeals from trial court orders in ongoing dissolution proceedings with his former wife, Karen Borg.[1] These orders denied his request to set aside a 2011 marital settlement agreement (MSA), declined to modify spousal support, modified child support, and granted Karen two awards for attorney fees and costs. One award for fees and costs was made under Family Code, section 2030,[2] which allows a trial court to shift the responsibility for paying fees and costs from one party to the other, and the other award was made under section 271, which allows a trial court to impose fees and costs as a sanction.
We largely affirm, except we remand for the recalculation of child support for several distinct periods.

Defendant Carlos Mario Jaimez pleaded no contest to two counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)).[1] He also admitted the truth of the personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) allegations as to both counts. Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause on the ground that the trial court erred when it failed to grant his motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court granted his request. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436 on behalf of defendant. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. We affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant German Zapata of two counts of sodomy of a child 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a); all further statutory references are to the Penal Code; counts 1, 2), sexual penetration of a child (§§ 288.7, subd. (b),289; count 3), and two counts of lewd acts on a child (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 4, 5). The jury found true an allegation defendantcommitted counts 4 and 5 against multiple victims within the meaning of the “One Strike” law (§ 667.61, subds. (b)(8), (e)).

A modification decision.

Milan REI IV, LLC (Milan) is the owner of 51 acres of land (the Property) in the Orange Park Acres neighborhood of the City of Orange (the City). Between 1968 and 2006, the Property featured a nine-hole golf course and other recreational facilities. In 2007, Milan applied to the City to develop a residential subdivision on the golf course portion of the Property. Dubbed “Ridgeline Equestrian Estates,” the proposed development consisted of 39 homes, each built on a one-acre lot, plus various equestrian amenities (the Project).
The City of Orange City Council ultimately approved the Project in 2011. In connection therewith, the City Council adopted a resolution amending the City’s general plan (General Plan Amendment). Among other things, the General Plan Amendment changed the existing designation of the Property on the general plan land use policy map (Policy Map) from “Open Space” to “Other Open Space & Low Density.” In response to petitioni

Defendant/appellant K.C.’s (father) four children were removed from his custody at the disposition hearing on a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300 petition. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting removal of the three younger children. We affirm.

In a companion appeal, we affirmed appellant Juan Hernandez’s first degree murder, attempted murder, and street terrorism convictions. (People v. Hernandez et al. (Mar. 8, 2017, F067543 [nonpub. opn.].)[1]
Hernandez now appeals from the trial court’s victim restitution order, arguing it was unauthorized because the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (the board) determined the amount of support-loss assistance before sentence was imposed, but the reimbursement claim was not submitted until two years later, making it untimely and unauthorized. We disagree, but agree with his claim that his custody credits should be amended.

Appellant Desiree Alayna Cruder appeals from the denial of her petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18,[1] seeking modification of the sentence imposed on her conviction for unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851). Appellant contends that her conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851 is eligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 generally, that her petition factually demonstrated eligibility, and that the trial court should have permitted her the opportunity to offer evidence regarding the value of the stolen vehicle. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Juan Hernandez, Ricardo Villanueva, Edgar Padilla, Manuel Gonzalez, Anthony Gonzalez, and Ramanjit Hundal, all members of the Varrio East Side Reedley (VESR) criminal street gang, were charged with the murder of Juan Negrete and attempted murder of Anselmo Salinas, as well as various street gang and gun use enhancements.Villanueva, Hernandez and Hundal went to trial together, but Hundal’s severance motion was granted after Hernandez stabbed him in the neck with a homemade “shank” in front of some 90 potential jurors during voir dire.[1]

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Leon Marcell Johnson pled no contest to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).)[1]In exchange for the plea, a trial court dismissed one count of battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) and one prior strike conviction(§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)).In accordance with the plea agreement, thecourt placed defendant on probation for a period of three years under specified conditions.Subsequently, the court found him in violation of his probation and sentenced him to the upper term of four years in state prison. Defendant now appeals. We affirm.

Appellant K.R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying her motion under Welfare and Institution Code[1] section 388. The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) moved to dismiss mother’s appeal as moot since the juvenile court has terminated the dependency, and joint physical and legal custody has been granted to mother and the child’s father, J.H. (father). This court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice. We now dismiss the appeal as moot.

In April 2016Howard Curry pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance for sale(Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and agreed to a stipulated sentence of three years.Curry moved to withdraw his plea, arguing he had been sleep deprived and not properly medicated when he entered his plea. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Curry to three years as contemplated in the plea agreement. The court imposed various fines and fees and credited Curry for 75 days of actual custody plus 74 days under Penal Code section 4019.