CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant H.G., in propria persona, appeals from a civil harassment restraining order entered against her. Because the restraining order expired by its terms on September 13, 2021, no appellate relief can be granted. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot.
BACKGROUND
In February 2021, M.V. filed a petition for a civil harassment restraining order (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6) against H.G. for harassing conduct alleged to have occurred over several weeks between December 2020 and February 2021. M.V. alleged she was harassed because H.G. blamed M.V. for her hair loss.
After issuing a temporary restraining order ex parte, the trial court held a contested evidentiary hearing on the restraining order on March 12, 2021. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the petition and issued a restraining order using Judicial Council form CH-130. H.G. appealed from the order.

For years, Ralph Lee White held a use permit that allowed the sale of beer and wine in a mini-mart on his commercial property. The trial court determined that in 2016, the City of Stockton (the City) violated White’s constitutional due process rights when it misinterpreted the use permit and denied a business license that would allow White’s tenant to sell beer and wine. The trial court issued a writ of mandate requiring the City to interpret the use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine, and the City does not challenge that portion of the ruling on appeal. The trial court also considered whether the City could be held liable for damages for the due process violation under Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs. (1978) 436 U.S. 658 [56 L.Ed.2d 611] (Monell). Finding liability for constitutional damages, the trial court awarded $38,000 in damages against the City.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judith Levey Meyer, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; Andre Woods, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________________




In March 1999, after a jury found Andre Lamont Woods guilty of numerous sexual and other offenses, the trial court sentenced him to 82 years and four months to life in state prison. The court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). In February 2000, we affirmed the judgment, with directions to the trial court that are not germane to this appeal. (People v. Woods (Feb. 16, 2000, B130961 [nonpub. opn.].)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cynthia L. Ulfig, Judge. Affirmed.
Alex Green, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________

Anthony Edward Hart appeals from the trial court’s order on remand from this court declining to strike any of his three five-year prior serious felony enhancements under Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1393). We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cynthia L. Ulfig, Judge. Affirmed.
Alex Green, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________

Anthony Edward Hart appeals from the trial court’s order on remand from this court declining to strike any of his three five-year prior serious felony enhancements under Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1393). We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Chelsea Stiles appeals a judgment following conviction of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated; assault with a deadly weapon (four counts); leaving the scene of a vehicle collision; child abuse with personal use of a deadly weapon (motor vehicle); and possession of a controlled substance. (Pen. Code, §§ 191.5, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(1), 273a, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1); Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a); Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) This appeal concerns Stiles’s traffic collisions with two vehicles in the early evening of December 1, 2019. Stiles rammed into the back of a vehicle containing four members of the DiCarlo family, disabling their vehicle, and forcing them from the roadway. Seconds later, Stiles drove into the opposing traffic lane at high speed and collided with a vehicle driven by Terry Tilton. That collision resulted in a “fireball” explosion, killing Tilton immediately. Following the collision, laboratory testing of Stile’s blood rev

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Christopher J. Smith, Judge. Affirmed.
Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________________

R.R. challenges a dispositional order committing him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a 30-month maximum period of confinement. R.R. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion, because there was no substantial evidence that a less restrictive placement would be inappropriate or ineffective. We affirm.

Milson Eduardo Escobedo-Yagut pled no contest to leaving the scene of an accident after he made a U-turn in his car, collided with a passing motorcycle, and drove off without providing his information. The trial court ordered him to pay restitution as a condition of probation to the motorcycle’s passenger, J.M., for her losses from the car accident. Escobedo-Yagut now challenges the restitution condition on the grounds that it is improper under Penal Code section 1203.1 and that it violates the prohibition against excessive fines in the state and federal Constitutions. We affirm the order.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
Appellant Ian Anthony Bulander pled guilty to attempted murder. He later filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (former section 1170.95). The trial court denied the petition because, at that time, eligibility for relief under former section 1170.95 was limited to those convicted of murder. The Attorney General concedes this limit on eligibility for resentencing no longer applies, but argues there was nevertheless no prejudicial error because Bulander remained ineligible for relief. We disagree, reverse the trial court’

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino, John M. Tomberlin, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded with directions.
Christine Vento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles Ragland and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Steve Oetting and Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Todd Eilers, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Jessica E.
David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Jonathan E.
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Carlie M. Flaugher, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Jessica E. (mother) and Jonathan E. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights as to their two-year-old son, Julius E. (Welf. & Inst. Code, section 366.26). They argue the juvenile court erred by declining to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). The parents appeal separately but each join in each other’s arguments. Finding no error, we affirm.

On October 13, 2020, the Kern County District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to sections 2970 and 2972 to extend defendant’s commitment as an MDO. The petition alleged that on October 29, 2013, defendant was sentenced to two years eight months in prison after having pled no contest to resisting a peace officer (§ 69). On March 25, 2014, defendant was certified as an MDO. On March 28, 2014, he was admitted to Atascadero State Hospital. On February 22, 2018, defendant was transferred to Coalinga State Hospital (CSH), where he now resides. His commitment was set to expire on March 20, 2021. The petition was filed based on the opinion of the medical director of CSH that defendant’s commitment should be extended pursuant to section 2970 because “he suffers from a severe mental disorder that is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission if treatment is not continued and by reason of mental disorder, he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.”

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Affirmed.
William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Kaleigh Ragon, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
D.H. (father) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to his son, D.H., Jr. (the child). The sole issue father raises is lack of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, or ICWA (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and Welfare and Institutions Code section 224 et seq. We affirm.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Donal B. Donnelly, Judge. Conditionally reversed with directions.
Mansi Thakkar, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Julie K. Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant R.M (Father) appeals from the February 3, 2022 orders terminating his parental rights to his son, E.M. (born in May 2021), and placing E.M. for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Father claims the orders must be reversed based on prejudicial “initial inquiry” error under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et. seq.) (ICWA) and related California law (§ 224.2). We agree that prejudicial error is shown; thus, we conditionally reverse the section 366.26 orders. (See In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 743-746 (Benjamin M.).)