CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Joshua Fires appeals from sentences entered on pleas of no contest in two cases. His counsel asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Fires was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We were nonetheless concerned that some of the probation conditions imposed in one of the cases were arguably unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and we asked for briefing on the issue.
In that briefing, Fires challenges probation conditions ordering him to stay away from the victims and their residence (stay-away condition), to not possess weapons (weapons condition), and to not use marijuana even with a Proposition 215 card (Proposition 215 condition). The Attorney General concedes that the first two conditions must be modified and the last condition must be stricken. We agree with the parties’ proposed disposition.

Defendant Jesus Ortega was convicted by a jury of communicating with a minor with the intent to commit a sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3, subd. (a)), attempting to meet with a minor for a lewd purpose (§§ 288.4, subd. (b), 664), sending harmful matter to a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a)(2)), arranging to meet with a minor for a lewd purpose (§ 288.4, subd. (a)(1)), and annoying or molesting a minor (§ 647.6, subd. (a)(1)). The court imposed a four-year prison term.
On appeal, defendant contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence that the photograph of an erect penis that he sent to Jane Doe’s e-mail address was “harmful matter” within the meaning of section 288.2 or that the photo was sent with the requisite intents, (2) the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to modify the standard instruction for three of the counts that the conduct must be “motivated by an unnatural and abnormal sexual interest in children” to add “caused by and” before “motivated

Evertz Technologies Ltd. and Evertz Microsystems, Ltd. appeals an order quashing service of summons in its suit against Nevada resident James Carl Cooper. The trial court granted Cooper’s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction finding that Cooper was not subject to suit in California for the claims alleged against him. On appeal Evertz contends that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of either general or specific personal jurisdiction. Additionally, Evertz argues that the court should have compelled Cooper to provide further discovery before ruling on his motion to quash. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

The court sentenced appellant to the middle term of two years as to count 2 and the upper term of three years as to count 3, to be served concurrently. On appeal, appellant contends (1) his conviction on count 2 must be reversed because it was supported by insufficient evidence; (2) alternatively, his sentence for count 2 must be stayed because it was executed in violation of the prohibition against multiple punishment (§ 654); and (3) the court erred by imposing certain fines and fees without making a determination that appellant had the ability to pay them. We modify the judgment to reflect the sentence on count 2 is stayed. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment as modified.

This is the second appeal brought by L.L. and H.L. (Grandparents) involving the custody of their grandson, V.P., against V.P.’s father, S.P. (Father). After their petition to terminate Father’s parental rights for having abandoned V.P. was unsuccessful, Grandparents sought legal and physical custody of V.P. as his presumed parents. The trial court held a hearing regarding Grandparents’ custody and parentage claims and awarded Father sole custody. Grandparents then filed several ex parte motions, a motion for reconsideration, and a motion for a new trial, which were denied.
Grandparents appeal. They contend the trial court violated their right to due process by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on their custody and parentage claims. We conclude Grandparents have not shown a due process violation because they lack standing as nonparents to initiate this action seeking custody of their grandson. We therefore affirm.

A 16-year-old rape victim fleeing her assailant approached Deshawn Ramon Elam, who had an admitted history of pimping, for help. When the minor victim told 27-year-old Elam she had been raped and was lost, Elam responded by saying, “ ‘Good, you don’t know where you are. You’re my bitch now.’ ” He offered to pay her for sex, and although she resisted because she was still in pain from the rape, she eventually consented. Elam pled guilty to sexual intercourse with a minor. (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c).)
Elam appeals the trial court’s discretionary decision to require him to register as a sex offender. (§ 290.006, subd. (a).) He contends the record contained insufficient facts to support the conclusion that he committed the offense for sexual gratification or as the result of a sexual compulsion, factual findings that must be made when ordering discretionary sex offender registration.

Calvin Cooper appeals an order summarily denying his petition to vacate his first degree murder conviction under Penal Code section 1170.95. The trial court found he was not entitled to relief, as a matter of law, because the jury returned a true finding on a robbery-murder special circumstance with the murder conviction. The jury’s finding on the special circumstance was made before the California Supreme Court’s decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark), which clarified the meaning of the terms “major participant” and “reckless indifference to human life” necessary to support such felony-murder special circumstance findings. (Banks, at pp. 797-798, 803; Clark, at pp. 608-624.)

Appointed counsel for defendant Frederick James Schiele has 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.) Our review of the record has disclosed that although defendant’s plea deal called for dismissal of the balance of the charges, the trial court failed to affirmatively dismiss those charges following defendant’s no contest plea and sentencing. We will modify the judgment to address this oversight. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment as modified.

In October 2015, police found the victim dead inside his home. Marijuana and money had been stolen from him. There was evidence placing defendant Sergio Martinez and four other men at or near the home at the time.
Later that month, five men wearing U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency type uniforms robbed six adults and two children at gunpoint in a home. Guns and marijuana were stolen. Defendant’s DNA was later found on one of the uniforms, and cell phone records placed defendants and the four other men near the area of the robbery. The next day, defendant and another man robbed a hydroponics store at gunpoint. They were wearing U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency type uniforms during the robbery and stole cash and a marijuana trimmer.

In 2003, a jury convicted Cedric Desmond Hood (defendant) of one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which proximately caused great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for 50 years to life (25 years for the murder plus 25 years for the firearm enhancement). As part of the sentencing, the court imposed a $9,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), ordered defendant to pay direct restitution to the victim’s family in the amount of $500 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), and imposed but stayed a $9,000 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45).
On appeal, a prior panel of this division of the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. (People v. Hood (Oct. 19, 2004, B172478) [nonpub. opn.].)

Conforming to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Ronald Richard Perez’s counsel filed an opening brief containing a statement of facts but raising no issues. Counsel asks this court to review the record independently and to determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. Perez submitted a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the supplemental brief and the record. No arguable issues exist. We affirm. Undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

Jacqueline C. (Mother) appeals from the orders terminating her parental rights to four-year-old Jayleen C. and three-year-old Addilyn C. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) and related California law.
The juvenile court found ICWA did not apply as to either Mother or Father (Carlos A.) based on Mother’s and Father’s denials of Indian ancestry.

Stephanie F. (mother) argues that she did not receive proper notice of the permanency planning hearing at which the juvenile court terminated her parental rights over her two children because the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Service (the Department) sent the notice via certified mail rather than certified mail with a return receipt requested. This defect in notice is harmless because mother’s presence at the hearing could not have changed its outcome. We accordingly affirm.

Defendant and appellant Ruben Anthony Emery is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for the special circumstance murder and attempted robbery of Henry Chow. Defendant appeals from the order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.
We affirm.