CA Unpub Decisions

From 2001 to 2010, a water bottling company operated a plant in Siskiyou County (the County) that extracted groundwater and then used it to produce bottled water. A few years after the plant closed, Crystal Geyser Water Company (Crystal Geyser) bought the facility and sought to revive it. To that end, Crystal Geyser requested, among other things, a permit from the County to build a caretaker’s residence for the bottling plant and a permit from the City of Mount Shasta (the City) to allow the plant to discharge wastewater into the City’s sewer system. Both the County and the City ultimately granted Crystal Geyser the permits it sought.
This appeal concerns one of two lawsuits challenging these approvals, both of which are now on appeal and both of which concern the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).

Defendant Frank Camacho and codefendants Joshua Parrish and Adam Villa were convicted of attempted murder, attempted robbery, and related firearm crimes. On appeal, defendant argued his conviction for attempted murder must be reversed in the wake of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015). Defendant also contended his custody credits were miscalculated in the trial court.
In an unpublished opinion, we modified the judgment relative to defendant’s custody credits and affirmed the judgment as modified. (People v. Camacho (Apr. 12, 2021, C090113 [nonpub. opn.].) The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 775) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551).

Plaintiffs Sally Thornber and Kevin Thornber brought suit against defendant Diane Colby seeking partition of a jointly owned single family home in Rocklin (the property). Following a court trial, the trial court ordered the partition by sale of the property and the appointment of a referee to oversee the sale. The trial court also found that attorney’s fees incurred by Sally and Kevin were for the common benefit, and ordered Diane to pay a proportionate share of those fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 874.040.
Diane appeals in propria persona. She raises numerous challenges to the conduct of the court trial and ensuing interlocutory judgment and orders. None of Diane’s challenges have merit. We will affirm.

A jury found defendant Jeffrey Vaughn Floyd guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, along with a gang enhancement for committing the crime for the benefit of and in association with a criminal street gang. With a strike and enhancements, he was sentenced to an aggregate 13-year term.
Defendant contends insufficient evidence supported the gang enhancement. He maintains that his possession of a firearm -- as a rap artist, making a rap video -- was intended to facilitate his art and thus was not possessed for the benefit of and/or in association with a criminal street gang with the intent to promote, further or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members.
In an unpublished opinion, we concluded that substantial evidence supported defendant’s gang enhancement. (People v. Floyd (Nov. 17, 2021, C089078) [nonpub. opn.].)

Chanel Gonsalves sued Sal Sok after he rear-ended her in a car accident. A jury afterward awarded her around $17,000 in damages. Gonsalves now appeals the judgment on that verdict, arguing that the trial proceedings were unfair in two respects. First, she argues that the trial court wrongly allowed the jury to view during its deliberations a timeline of events that Sok’s counsel had used in closing arguments. She reasons that because the timeline was never admitted into evidence, the court should not have allowed the jury to view it in deliberations. Second, she contends that Sok’s counsel improperly told the jury that Gonsalves’s medical treatment following the accident was “attorney driven”—which, she asserts, “plays on the pre-conceived notions that plaintiff’s lawyers are all ambulance chasers that belong at the bottom of the sea.” We affirm.

Ryan Clifford sued a national fraternity, Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, Inc. (Alpha), and its local chapter at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), Chi Delta (Delta), for hazing and negligence based on two incidents that occurred when he was a pledge in 2008. A jury awarded Clifford $202,716 in total damages, which the trial court reduced in response to posttrial motions to a judgment of $38,735.95 in favor of Clifford against Delta and $33,259.03 in favor of Alpha against Clifford. We will affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Damian Dennis Walters (defendant) appeals his judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of no contest. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On January 25, 2022, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.
In March 2021, defendant was charged in a complaint with four counts of use of tear gas on a person in violation of Penal Code section 22810, subdivision (g)(1), a felony (counts 1, 3, 6 & 9).

Jennifer T. (Mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court declaring that her three minor children are adoptable and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) We conclude that the court properly considered and applied the holding of In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 636 (Caden C.) and affirm.

Robert M.L. (Father) appeals an order of the family law court modifying physical custody of his child and permitting M.T.J. (Mother) to relocate to Texas. We conclude that the family law court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.

Dayonte Hull appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Due to an intervening change in the law, the Attorney General agrees the denial must be reversed and the matter remanded. We agree, reverse the trial court’s order denying the petition, and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant and appellant Jeff Zuniga (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court revoked his probation and the imposition of a previously suspended sentence. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the prosecutor’s continuance of the revocation hearing from January 19, 2021, to February 2, 2021, and that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the continuance. Defendant also argues that the hearing of February 2, 2021, was barred by collateral estoppel as well as the prohibition against multiple punishment (Pen. Code, § 654) and again that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object. Finally defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony at the revocation hearing. Finding no merit in any of defendant’s contentions, we affirm the judgment.

This is an appeal by a father, claiming he was entitled to reimbursement for child care expenses he advanced over a period of several years. The trial court gave him only a fraction of the amount requested. Because the father has failed to provide an adequate record for review, we affirm.

Petitioners J.G. (Mother) and F.C. (Father) petition this court for extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order bypassing reunification services and setting a selection-and-implementation hearing for their son, nearly six-year-old P.B. (Older Brother), and daughter, three-year-old L.B. (Younger Sister).
These proceedings arose after a younger sibling—a baby boy, who is the subject of a separate dependency proceeding—was taken into protective custody. After the baby boy was taken into custody, the parents took Older Brother and Younger Sister out of state, and investigators were initially unaware of them. Once investigators learned of them, these proceedings were initiated by real party in interest Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau), even though the location of the family was at first unknown.
In this writ proceeding, the parents argue that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to proceed in their absence.

A multi-agency police investigation into drug trafficking and other crimes committed in Santa Clara County by Norteño criminal street gangs, operating under the umbrella of the Nuestra Familia prison gang, led to the indictment of appellant James Gonzalez and 23 others. A jury convicted Gonzalez of numerous crimes including street terrorism, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, dissuading a witness or victim by force, robbery, burglary, criminal threats, conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine for sale, and illegal possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury also found true several sentence enhancements. The trial court sentenced Gonzalez to 14 years to life in prison, consecutive to 38 years.
On appeal, Gonzalez raises 15 claims of error. Stated broadly, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his robbery and conspiracy convictions, certain jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and rulings on his motion for new trial, and his sentence.