CA Unpub Decisions

A.F. (Father) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights over his eight-year-old son L.H. (Minor) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father contends there is no evidence the juvenile court or the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) complied with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California statutes. The parties have stipulated to a limited reversal of the parental rights termination order to demonstrate compliance with ICWA. We accept the parties’ stipulation.

Larry Jordan appeals from the denial of his petition to recall his sentence under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18),[1] which reduced certain theft-related and drug-related felonies to misdemeanors. Appellant’s counsel on appeal filed a Wende brief (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)) requesting that we conduct an independent review of the record. We have done so and conclude that no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.
On March 25, 1996, appellant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) On October 22, 2015, appellant filed a petition under section 1170.18, a provision of Proposition 47 enacted in November 2014, seeking to reduce his assault conviction to a misdemeanor.
Under section 1170.18, subdivision (f): “A person who has completed his or her sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or plea, of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under this act had this act been

Defendant Andre Gustave was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code,[1] former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) in 1996. After the trial court found true allegations that he had suffered three prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), he was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life plus one year for a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
In February 2013, defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence under section 1170.126 (Proposition 36). The trial court denied the petition, and defendant appeals. We affirm the order.

Martha L. (mother) appeals from the dependency court’s March 10, 2016 order denying without a hearing her petition to change court orders under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388.[1] We affirm the order, and dismiss as moot the portion of mother’s appeal challenging the court’s order as to her daughter, Lydia C.

Following a head-on vehicle collision, defendant Antonio Ibarra was convicted of two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, he argues there was insufficient evidence that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the collision. We find that there was sufficient evidence and affirm.

Dina Defterios appeals from an order awarding her $15,000 in need-based attorney fees and costs to oppose a motion to modify child custody. (Fam. Code, §§ 2030; 2032, subd. (a).)[1] The trial court found that appellant’s request for $77,067.50 fees and $17,459.77 costs was excessive and unreasonable. There was no abuse of discretion and we affirm.

The mother, I.M., appeals from a January 20, 2016 order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petition. She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in summarily denying her section 388 petition. We affirm the order.

Jose G. (father) appeals from the jurisdictional finding that his twin sons, Luis M. and Jose M. (minors), were at risk of sexual abuse pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (d) and (j)[1] because he molested their six-year-old half-sister. Father also appeals from the dispositional order releasing minors to Hortencia M. (mother) and giving her sole legal and physical custody.
We find no error and affirm.

On June 23, 2014, defendant and appellant Thomas Michael Ritchie pleaded nolo contendere to second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)[1] Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on formal probation for a period of four years with various terms and conditions.

On February 26, 2015, probation was revoked. On June 4, 2015, defendant stipulated to a violation of probation. The trial court found defendant in violation of probation. Probation was revoked and then reinstated, and defendant was ordered to engage in drug counseling.

On December 16, 2015, defendant was arrested. His probation was revoked. At the probation revocation hearing on January 14, 2016, defendant admitted a violation of probation for failure to complete drug counseling. The trial court again revoked probation and sentenced defendant to the low term of two years in state prison. He was awarded 172 days of presentence custody credit.

Defendant timely appeals, arguing that the trial

On November 20, 2014, in a petition filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, it was alleged that Z.K. (minor) committed vandalism resulting in damage under $400. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a).)[1] Minor admitted the allegation. The juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court and placed him on home probation.
On November 19, 2015, in an amended petition filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, it was alleged that minor committed disturbing the peace of a school campus (count 2; § 415.5, subd. (a)), vandalism resulting in damage under $400 (count 3; § 594, subd. (a)), and indecent exposure (count 4; § 314, subd. (1)).

In this dependency case involving Isabel R. (Isabel), Valerie C. (Valerie) and Ashley C. (Ashley) (collectively minors), T.R. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional findings that she failed to protect Isabel within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d),[1] and as to Valerie and Ashley under subdivisions (b), (d) and (j). We find no error and affirm.

Several pieces of the victim’s dismembered body, including his hands, feet and head, were found in Griffith Park within weeks of his demise. Timely disclosure was made. About two years later, three more pieces of flesh were discovered and linked to the victim by DNA analysis. Disclosure of the evidence and the ensuing report were made 16 months later while the trial was in progress. Appellant requested that the jury be instructed regarding the prosecution’s failure to make timely disclosure. (CALCRIM No. 306.) The trial court refused. We affirm.

Thomas Chronister retired after a long career as a police officer with the Oxnard Police Department (OPD). OPD denied non-monetary retirement benefits that an officer in his position would have received upon an honorable retirement. They did so because he had violated OPD policy by maintaining a concealed, intimate relationship with a woman whom he knew to be under indictment for murder. Seeking redress, appellant sued respondents: OPD; the City of Oxnard (City); the former Oxnard Chief of Police, Jeri Williams; and the former Interim City Manager, Karen Burnham. The trial court sustained a demurrer as to one cause of action and granted a motion for summary adjudication as to an issue raised in another cause of action. After a court trial, judgment was entered in respondents’ favor.
Appellant claims that OPD unlawfully interrogated him, failed to afford him an opportunity for an administrative appeal, violated its rules and regulations, and refused to grant

It was undisputed that defendant Freddie Sanchez killed his mother with a knife in the family home. By his own account, he “butchered” his mother, stabbing her multiple times. Defendant was convicted of second degree murder.
He also was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a radio, on his father and violating a previously entered restraining order protecting his father. These convictions arose from defendant’s conduct the day before killing his mother.
After review, we affirm defendant’s convictions.