CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and his codefendants robbed a casino and several of its patrons. Multiple codefendants used assault weapons, pointing them at patrons, employees and a security guard. Later, defendant and his codefendants conspired to rob the casino again but were caught and arrested. Defendant and his codefendants were convicted of well over a dozen crimes in connection with these incidents.
Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike his prior serious felony enhancement. (Pen. Code, § 667, subd.(a).) We reject this contention and affirm.

In 1998, a jury found petitioner Sonya Grant guilty of the second degree murder of Sheree Lee (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), and found true an enhancement for personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)). For this offense, the trial court sentenced petitioner to a term of 15 years to life, plus an additional one-year term for the arming enhancement.
In 2019, petitioner filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court summarily denied the petition without providing a statement of reasons.
On appeal, petitioner argues the trial court erred in (1) failing to provide a statement of reasons supporting the denial of the petition, (2) failing to expressly determine whether petitioner stated a prima facie claim of resentencing eligibility, and (3) engaging in factfinding without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant Nolan Tanner Terrell contends on appeal that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion to dismiss a prior felony “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)); and (2) his sentence on count 1 in case No. F19905005 must be vacated and his case remanded for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 567’s
(2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567) amendments to section 1170, subdivision (b). We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing in light of amended section 1170, subdivision (b). In all other respects, we affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Lynn Bedrijo Dignan asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

In 2016, a jury convicted petitioner Heliodoro Arreola Silva with the first degree murder of Rodolfo B. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189; count 1) and the first degree murder of Reyes B. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189; count 2). For both counts, the jury found true the special circumstance that petitioner committed multiple murders and committed the murders during the commission or attempted commission of a kidnapping (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (a)(17)(B)). For each murder, the court imposed consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole plus an additional one-year term for a firearm enhancement. (People v. Silva (Aug. 7, 2019, F074899) [nonpub. opn.] (Silva).)
In 2019, petitioner filed a petition for resentencing on his murder convictions pursuant to section 1170.95.

In 2017, appellant Michael Phenneger and two codefendants were tried for the 2014 stabbing death of Roman Aguayo. The jury was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. In 2018, appellant was tried alone and a second jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), finding true that this crime was committed with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also convicted appellant of active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 2).
Appellant, who was born in 1996, was 17 years old when this homicide occurred. He received an indeterminate prison term of 25 years to life. This sentence was consolidated with sentencing in three other unrelated criminal matters, all of which appellant had resolved through plea agreements.

In this dependency case, defendant and appellant B.C. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights over her child, L.C. She argues that the juvenile court should have instead applied the beneficial parent-child relationship exception and selected legal guardianship as the child’s permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Mother further maintains that alleged father, T.R., was denied due process when he was not noticed of the dependency proceedings and the court failed to afford him the protections of the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. § 3901 et seq.) (SCRA). Finding no error, we affirm.

This is defendant and appellant Rafael Rodriguez Diaz’s second appeal in this case. At trial, the jury convicted Diaz on various charges and enhancements relating to three separate occasions when he fled from police to avoid arrest, including a conviction for attempted murder of a police officer. Diaz admitted to prior convictions, which included one strike prior (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), one serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)), and three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to a total of 64 years four months to life in prison. (People v. Diaz (Sep. 28, 2020, E071215) [nonpub. opn.] (Diaz I).)
In his first appeal, we affirmed Diaz’s convictions but remanded the case with directions to the trial court to exercise its discretion under sections 667, subdivision (a)(1), and 1385, as amended by Senate Bill No. 1393 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, §§ 1-2); to strike the enhancements imposed under former section 667.5, subdivision (b

M.G. (Father) appeals from an order issued at the contested disposition hearing where the juvenile court denied his request for reunification services and found without prejudice that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Counsel for Father and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency, together the parties) 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 compliance with the ICWA.
In July 2021, Father initially told a social worker that he had no Native American heritage but later disclosed possible Cherokee heritage in his maternal and paternal lineages. Mother, A.M., claimed possible Cherokee ancestry through the maternal great-great-grandmother.

Reza Monsef entered into a lease with Joshua Goens for certain commercial property. Subsequently, Monsef and Goens disagreed regarding what was promised under the lease, including whether Monsef was to operate a car dealership on the entire property. Goens began the eviction process to remove Monsef from the property. In response, Monsef told Goens that he would bring a civil suit if Goens proceeded with an unlawful detainer action. Four days after Goens filed an unlawful detainer action, Monsef sued Goens, alleging, among other things, that Goens made certain misrepresentations during the negotiation of the lease.
In response to Monsef’s complaint, Goens brought a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The court denied the motion, finding the complaint was not based on Goens’s right to petition the court or bring an unlawful detainer action.

Steven Boyd Harper purports to appeal the order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. He did not appeal the order denying the petition before the time to do so had expired and subsequently filed the motion for reconsideration. After the People argued in their brief the order denying the reconsideration motion was not appealable, Harper filed a motion for constructive filing of a notice of appeal from the order denying the resentencing petition. Because the order denying the reconsideration motion is not appealable and Harper did not diligently seek constructive filing of a notice of appeal from the order denying the section 1170.95 petition, we deny the constructive filing motion and dismiss the appeal.

An information charged defendant Adrian Diaz with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211—count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)—count 2). The information alleged Diaz, in committing these offenses, personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)); and personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, not an accomplice (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)).
The jury found Diaz not guilty on count 1 and guilty on count 2, and found true the two enhancements. Diaz admitted the truth of the allegation that he previously had been convicted of making a criminal threat (§ 422), which was both a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12) and a serious felony prior (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, 1192.7, subd. (c)(38)).

Appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Allan Clark asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

In October 2014, Luis Enriquez Monroy Bracamontes and Janelle Marquez Monroy traveled from Utah to California with an assortment of firearms, including an AR-15 tactical rifle. Over the span of about two hours, they carved a path of destruction between Sacramento and Auburn. During two separate shootouts, Bracamontes shot and killed two peace officers, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel Oliver and Placer County Sheriff’s Detective Michael Davis, and attempted to kill at least four more. After the first shootout and murder, Bracamontes shot and attempted to kill another man during an attempted carjacking. Two successful carjackings brought Bracamontes and Monroy to Auburn, where the second shootout and murder occurred.
Bracamontes and Monroy were tried together before separate juries. This appeal involves only Monroy.