CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants Lamont Mims, Anthony Mims, Darrell Samuels, Jr., and Randell Taylor appeal after a jury convicted them of various offenses related to the armed burglary of an occupied home. Anthony Mims contends the trial court erred by denying his multiple requests to replace appointed counsel. He and the other defendants also challenge several aspects of their sentences. We find no error affecting defendants’ convictions, but they are entitled to the benefit of newly enacted legislation giving the trial court discretion to strike certain sentencing enhancements. We will reverse the judgment and remand for that limited purpose.

A claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (PAGA), may only be brought by an “aggrieved employee.” (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (a).) Plaintiff Erik Adolph contends that Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) misclassified employees as independent contractors and seeks civil penalties against Uber under PAGA. Before he began working for Uber, Adolph signed an arbitration agreement, under the terms of which all disputes between them are to be resolved in arbitration and which purported to waive Adolph’s right to assert a PAGA claim. The California Supreme Court has held, however, that PAGA claims are not subject to arbitration and that an agreement waiving the right to bring a representative claim under PAGA violates public policy and is unenforceable. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 384 (Iskanian).)

Appointed counsel for defendant Brennen Joshua Maytorena asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal following our remand of this case in People v. Maytorena (July 30, 2020, F077998) [nonpub. opn.] (Maytorena). (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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.

Defendant Sophia Rose Lopez was convicted by a jury of two counts of making criminal threats—one count for each of two victims. She received an aggregate sentence of seven years, four months in prison. She raises four contentions on appeal: (1) one of her convictions was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to dismiss her prior strike conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero); (3) her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek pretrial mental health diversion under section 1001.36; and (4) she is entitled to a remand for resentencing under newly enacted Senate Bill No. 567 (2021—2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567). We affirm.

Armando Villanueva was convicted by jury of 10 counts of sexually abusing minor girls at a daycare operated by his wife. He raises a single issue on appeal: Did the trial court err in excluding evidence he was sexually interested in “adult Caucasian women, not children?”
We conclude the court did not err and, even had it erred, the error would be harmless based on other evidence presented indicating Villanueva was neither sexually deviant nor suggestive of pedophilia. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

K.G. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her now-ten-year-old daughter K.G.-C. (K. or child). She contends that the juvenile court erred by refusing to apply the parental-benefit exception to termination. She also contends that Children and Family Services (CFS) erroneously failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of state statutes implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
We will hold that the juvenile court properly found that the parental-benefit exception did not apply. However, CFS concedes that it failed to carry out its duty of inquiry. Accordingly, we will reverse, but only conditionally. If, after a proper inquiry, the juvenile court finds that ICWA does not apply, it must reinstate the order terminating parental rights.

Objector and appellant M.D. appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to his children on the basis of abandonment under Family Code section 7822. Father contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that he intended to abandon the children. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Jason Howard Runnels appeals the Riverside County Superior Court’s summary denial of his petition for resentencing made pursuant to section 1170.95 of the Penal Code. We affirm.

In 2000, defendant Marlon Bayliss and his half-brother Eddie Hampton were convicted of murder, committed after the two planned to “jack” a bar, armed with firearms provided by defendant, resulting in the shooting death of the business owner by a shotgun blast from Hampton’s firearm. Defendant Bayliss was sentenced to a term of 51 years to life and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. In 2019, following passage of Senate Bill No. 1437, defendant Bayliss filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. The trial court found there was a prima facie basis for relief and conducted an evidentiary hearing. However, after that hearing, the trial court denied the petition after it determined Bayliss was a major participant and that he acted with reckless disregard for human life. Defendant appeals.

In 2021, Keith L. Rogers was on parole for a sex offense and was under GPS supervision. Rogers committed a sexual battery and a petition to revoke probation was filed. An evidentiary hearing was held on the petition. At the end of the hearing, the court revoked parole and sentenced Rogers to 76 days of additional custody.
Rogers filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Rogers the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

A.C., father of the minors V.C. and J.C. (father), appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating its jurisdiction over this dependency action and specifically objects to the visitation order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 364.) Father contends the juvenile court improperly delegated its judicial authority to the minors as to whether any visitation would occur at all when it included language in the custody order that “visitation and contact is not to be forced.” We shall affirm.

During an altercation, appellant Michael Joseph Blake’s leg was broken. In connection with that altercation, criminal charges were filed against respondent Cameron Crocker. Blake testified at the criminal trial, which ended in Crocker’s acquittal. Later, Crocker sued Blake, raising five causes of action, including slander and malicious prosecution. Blake filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), which the trial court denied. On appeal, Blake argues the trial court erred by not striking Crocker’s slander and malicious prosecution claims. We agree, and therefore reverse and remand with directions.

Appellant, defendant Ralph Huerta Gamboa, and co-defendant Jesus Rodriguez were tried together in connection with a June 2015 crime spree in Stockton. The jury found defendant guilty of two counts of first degree murder as to Luis and Javier (counts 1 & 4), five counts of attempted robbery (counts 2, 5, 7, 9, & 16), one count of assault with a firearm (count 3), the attempted murder of Victor (count 6), one count of mayhem (count 8), eight counts of robbery (counts 10-15, 17, & 21), one count of carrying a loaded firearm in public that he was not the registered owner of (count 19), one count of first degree burglary (count 20), one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (count 22), one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle (count 23), and one count of possession of a firearm within a school zone (count 25). The jury found true the special circumstances of multiple murders and that the murders were committed during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery.

Following the birth of each of mother Cynthia R.’s and father D.M. Sr.’s three children, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department), filed a petition alleging substantial risk of harm to the child based on the parents’ current substance abuse. Three and a half years after the first petition was filed, the juvenile court terminated parental rights as to each child. During those years, Mother denied eight times that she or her children had Indian ancestry. As to the first child, Father denied Indian ancestry, and paternal grandmother denied that she or Father had Indian ancestry.
Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the Department failed to comply with its duty under state law implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) to inquire of extended family members whether her children may be Indian children. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2.) Mother argues this error was prejudicial.