CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on one count charged. He also contends errors in the trial, including alleged instances of juror misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct, cumulatively denied him a fair trial on all counts. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of brandishing a firearm and voluntary manslaughter with a firearm use enhancement. He claimed self-defense in response to the homicide charge. He contends evidence of the victim’s character for violence was admitted to show both the victim’s state of mind and his conduct in conformity with that character trait on the day of his death. The trial court, however, erroneously instructed the jury it could consider the evidence only on the issue of defendant’s state of mind. Additionally, defendant contends the jury instruction on self-defense incorrectly added as an element a requirement that defendant used no more force that was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger. He contends if he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm, and he reasonably believed immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger, he was justified in using lethal force as a matter o

During a five-year relationship with his girlfriend, defendant and appellant, Brandon Tolivert, engaged in ongoing violence and threats against her. A jury convicted defendant of 11 criminal offenses:[2] counts 1 and 2, assault with a deadlyweapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); count 3, making criminal threats (§ 422);[3] count 4, first degree burglary (§§ 459/460);count 5, stalking (§646.9, subd. (b)); counts 6 through 10, making criminal threats (§ 422); and count 13, violating a court order (§ 273.6,subd. (a).)The trial courtsentenced defendant to an aggregate term of nine years eight months in state prison.[4]
On appeal, defendant challenges various aspects of his sentence. He contends the court should not have imposed consecutive sentences on counts 1 and 3—assault with a deadly weapon and making criminal threats—and that his sentence on count 5 for stalkingshould have been stayed. As for counts 7 through 10, he argues his convictions should be reversed or, in the alternat

Appellant Edwin R., a juvenile, appeals from a probation order entered after he admitted to committing an act of vandalism. Two of the probation requirements imposed on Edwin are that he consent to law enforcement searches of any electronic devices in his possession and that he provide his passwords to internet and social media websites to his probation officer. Edwin contends that these search conditions are invalid and constitutionally overbroad.
We conclude that the conditions Edwin challenges are valid under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), but the condition requiring Edwin to provide passwords to any and all internet sites he accesses is unconstitutionally overbroad. We therefore modify that search condition and affirm the probation order as modified.

M.R. (Mother), mother of 17-month-old S.H., and S.H.’s father, L.H. (Father), separately petition for extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s orders terminating their reunification services and scheduling a permanency planning hearing for S.H. under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26 (366.26 hearing). Both parents request a temporary stay of the 366.26 hearing, scheduled for May 10, 2017, pending a ruling on their petitions. Mother contends the court erred in scheduling a 366.26 hearing because there was a substantial probability that S.H. could be returned to her care within the next six months. Father contends the court erred in declining to award him additional reunification services. Both parents contend they did not receive reasonable services. We reject the parents’ challenges, and thereforedeny their petitions and stay requests.

Defendant Jared Soinila appeals a judgment imposing a six-year prison sentence upon his guilty plea to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues and requesting the court to make an independent review of the record.Defendant has filed a supplemental brief presenting a substantial issue, prompting the court to request further briefing from counsel on that issue.Having reviewed the record and the supplemental briefing that has been submitted, we conclude there was no error or need for further briefing.
The underlying facts were summarized in the defendant’s statement in mitigation submitted to the trial court as follows.“On February 27, 2016, at approximately 7:50 p.m., the defendant . . . caused a fatal accident on Vichy Springs Road, Ukiah.He was driving his 2009 silver Toyota Tacoma at an unsafe speed, while under the influence of alcohol. He cut a corner, and he lo

Maurice Chaires was convicted by jury of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)),vehicle theft (id., § 666.5), and evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)).Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende[1] brief, certifying that counsel was unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also submitted a declaration confirming that Chaires was advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) We find no arguable issues and therefore affirm.

Defendant and appellant George Valdez was convicted of multiple offenses growing out of the abuse of his former stepdaughter and his stepdaughter's younger friend. The abuse of the stepdaughter began when she was six years old, continued until she was 12 years old and involved multiple acts of vaginal and anal intercourse as well as oral copulation; Valdez's abuse of his stepdaughter's friend began when the second victim was eight and involved digital penetration, attempted sodomy, sodomy and separate lewd acts.
Valdez was sentenced to an aggregate term of 370 years to life and a consecutive determinate sentence of 14 years 8 months.
On appeal, Valdez argues the trial court erred in failing to excuse a prospective juror for cause and in failing to provide him with additional peremptory challenges; he further argues his attorney was ineffective in failing to use a peremptory challenge to excuse the juror he believes was unduly biased. We find no a

A jury convicted defendant Michael James White of multiple crimes including two counts of misdemeanor child endangerment. (Pen. Code,§ 273a, subd. (b).)[1]On appeal he contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury on direct infliction of child abuse, instead of indirect infliction of child abuse. The People concede instructional error but maintain the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the People. Defendant also contends insufficient evidence supported one of the counts of child endangerment under either theory of abuse, direct or indirect. We disagree and affirm.

In this construction defect lawsuit by a homeowner, the jury found the general contractor -- defendant Estate of William G. Davidson, formerly Davidson Construction (Davidson)-- negligent and liable for some, but not all, alleged violations of building standards under the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code section 895, et seq. (the Act). The estate is a proper party where the decedent was protected by insurance. (Prob. Code, § 550.) (Unless otherwise noted, statutory references that follow are to the Civil Code.) The estate is a proper party where the decedent was protected by insurance. (Prob. Code, § 550.) The Act makes the builder who sells homes liable for violations without proof of negligence (§§ 911, 942), while general contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales are liable only if the plaintiff proves they negligently caused the violation in whole or part (§§ 911, subd. (b), 936).
The jury found the grading subcontractor -- defendant Rick Ger

Plaintiff Stacey Ogle appeals from the trial court’s order denying her motion to certify a class of current and former call center customer service representatives who allegedly were required to take meal breaks late or denied meal breaks altogether, and were underpaid overtime by defendant Restoration Hardware, Inc., in violation of California wage and hour laws. The trial court ruled that a class action was not a superior means of handling the litigation given the evidence submitted, finding that Ogle failed to demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and numerous class, a predominance of common questions of law or fact, or adequacy as a class representative.
On appeal, Ogle contends the court applied improper criteria, made erroneous legal assumptions, and improperly considered the merits in ruling on the motion. We affirm the order denying her motion for class certification. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling that Ogle failed to meet he

The mother, Lidia P., has appealed from the dispositional order in a dependency case. The Department of Children and Family Services has moved to dismiss the mother’s appeal. We agree the appeal is moot and order dismissal.
On July 28, 2016, the juvenile court issued the dispositional order. The juvenile court ordered the child, Jade G., removed from the mother’s custody. The court ordered the child be in the mother’s home. On January 30, 2017, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and ordered the child returned to the mother’s custody. We agree the appeal is moot as there is no effectual relief we can provide to the mother. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541; In re B.L. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1117; In re Melissa R. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 24, 34; In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1240-1241; In re Karen G. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390; In re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 135; In

The mother, Beatriz C., has appealed from the dispositional order in a dependency case. The Department of Children and Family Services has moved to dismiss the mother’s appeal. We agree the appeal is moot and order dismissal.
The dispositional order directed that the family be subject to six months of informal supervision. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 360, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.695(a)(2).) The six months of informal supervision have now elapsed and the parties agree no new dependency proceedings have been instituted. Thus, the appeal is moot as there is no effectual relief we can provide to the mother. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541; In re B.L. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1117; In re Melissa R. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 24, 34; In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1240-1241; In re Karen G. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390; In re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 135; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 C

Casey C. (father) appeals from jurisdictional findings declaring his three children dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),[1]and the disposition order removing them from his custody. Father also appeals the court’s decision to deny his request to represent himself. We reverse the jurisdictional finding based on allegations concerning father’s mental health because that finding is not supported by substantial evidence. We dismiss as nonjusticiable the portion of father’s appeal challenging the court’s other jurisdictionalfindings against him. We affirm the orderremoving the children from parental custody under section 361, subdivision (c)(1), and the order denying father’s Farettamotion.