CA Unpub Decisions

In October 2014, six children (J.M., D.M., S.C., G.M., B.C., and B.M.), came to the attention of the San Bernardino Children and Family Services (CFS) following an incident in which mother’s significant other, the father of the youngest child, fired shots in the back yard of the family residence, resulting in his arrest. CFS filed a dependency petition based on the shooting, with allegations relating to the filthy conditions of the house, which had no running water, as well as the parents’ unsafe lifestyle (with a large marijuana grow in the back yard), excessive corporal punishment, and sexual abuse of the oldest daughter by the incarcerated stepfather.

Defendant and appellant C.M.(mother) challenges the termination of her parental rights by the juvenile court at a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 hearing on September 7, 2016. For the reasons set forth post, we shall affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant not guilty of first degree murder and returned a “not true” finding on the special circumstance allegation as to count 1. It found him guilty of second degree murder and found true the allegation that defendant personally discharged a firearm proximately causing death. It found him not guilty of attempted murder and not guilty of any lesser offense with respect to count 2, and found him guilty of shooting at an inhabited dwelling as alleged in count 3. It found true the allegation that he personally used a firearm in the commission of count 3.
The court imposed a term of 15 years to life on count 1, with a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement on that count. It imposed and stayed the sentence on count 3 and its enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Plaintiff and appellant Gary Hyatt was injured while riding a bus operated by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). He sought damages for personal injury, alleging that the driver had negligently operated the two-part or articulated bus around a turn at an excessive rate of speed, causing Hyatt to be thrown into a stairwell where he broke his leg. The jury returned a special verdict finding that MTS was negligent but that its driver's conduct was not a substantial factor in causing Hyatt's injuries. The court entered a defense judgment.

Mike H. appeals a dispositional order adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placing him on probation after he admitted to sodomy of a minor in violation of Penal Code section 286, subdivision (b)(1). He challenges certain conditions of his probation that limit and facilitate searches of his Internet and computer activity, arguing the conditions are invalid under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) or unconstitutionally overbroad encroachments on his First Amendment rights. We vacate some of the challenged conditions, modify others, and otherwise affirm.

A jury convicted Said Rodriguez of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11364, subd. (a)); conspiracy to sell or transport a controlled substance (Pen. Code,
§ 182, subd. (a); Health & Saf. Code, § 11379) and being in a place where controlled substances were used (Health & Saf. Code, § 11365, subd. (a)).
The court sentenced Rodriguez to a split sentence consisting of one year in county jail followed by two years of mandatory supervision. On appeal, Rodriguez contends the court reversibly erred by denying his motion to suppress his confession because although he was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 (Miranda), his confession was involuntary. Rodriguez also requests that we review the transcript of the sealed proceedings that Judge Altamirano conducted under People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs), for us to determine whether his motion t

J.S. (mother) appeals from the findings and orders made by the juvenile court at the combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing concerning three of her children. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’sjurisdictional findingunder Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).[1] Mother further contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s dispositionalorderremoving the children from her custody.

In this juvenile dependency case, defendant and appellant T.B. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s sole jurisdictional finding against her, namely that she failed to protect her three children from their father’s illicit drug use.[1] Mother also challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional order to the extent it requires her to participate in individual counseling sessions to address “case issues” other than domestic violence victimization. Because we conclude substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that Mother failed to protect her children from their father’s illicit drug use, we reverse the jurisdictional finding against Mother. To the extent the challenged dispositional order requires Mother’s individual counseling to address issues other than domestic violence victimization, we reverse that as well.

Defendants, Kendal Vernon Johnson, Keith Jermaine Fuller and Dashawn Combs, were convicted after jury trials of: first degree murder with special circumstances (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17));[1] attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)); first degree burglary with a person present (§§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21)); and home invasion robbery (§ 211). Mr. Fuller and Mr. Combs were jointly tried before separate juries. Mr. Johnson was separately tried. The juries also found true gang and firearm use enhancement allegations. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C), 12022.53.) Mr. Johnson was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 80 years to life. Mr. Fuller was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 50 years to life plus 18 years. Mr. Combs was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 15 years to life plus 10 years. We modify the judgments and affirm as modified with directions.

Rufus Tyrone Haynes (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence and he pleaded guilty to three firearm related charges (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 25400, subd. (a)(2), 25850, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior prison term allegation (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and shall affirm the judgment.

Petitioner Corey Glassman seeks habeas corpus relief from the decision of the Governor overturning for the second time the determination of the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) that he is suitable for parole. Glassman’s crime, committed as a juvenile more than 30 years ago, was—as all parties recognize—truly horrific. Nonetheless, the Governor’s decision that Glassman currently presents an unreasonable risk of danger to society is not supported by “some evidence,” so that we must set it aside and reinstate the Board’s decision finding Glassman suitable for parole.

This is an appeal from final judgment after a jury convicted appellant David Allan Russell of felony reckless evasion of a peace officer and felony driving or taking a vehicle without consent. The trial court thereafter found true various enhancements related to appellant’s prior felony convictions, and ordered him to serve a total prison term of two years and eight months.
After appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende) in which she raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (People v. Kelly).) Counsel attests that appellant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but he declined to exercise such right.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende

Vernon Mandigo appeals his conviction for attempted burglary with a gang enhancement. He contends the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence resulting from what he contends was a warrantless arrest without probable cause. We affirm.

Plaintiffs Richard and Marcella Johnson sued defendant Moore Dry Dock, along with a host of other defendants, alleging that Richard Johnson (Johnson) developed mesothelioma from his occupational exposure to asbestos during his service in the Navy in the 1960s. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs’ expert witness’s declaration failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether Johnson was exposed to asbestos from any of defendant’s products. Agreeing that there are no triable issues of material fact, we affirm.