CA Unpub Decisions

Doloras Menagh appeals the summary judgment in her legal malpractice action against Richard Dunbar Thorn and his law firm. Menagh claims that because she filed her action less than one year after she discovered and suffered actual injury from Thorn’s malpractice, the trial court incorrectly ruled the statute of limitations barred the action. We disagree with Menagh and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Tinisha Nate Joseph was found guilty by a jury of felony hit and run. Defendant appeals and contends: (1) insufficient evidence demonstrated she knew or should have known she injured a person in the accident; and (2) the court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on mistake of law. The People concede it was error for the court to instruct the jury on mistake of law (CALCRIM No. 3407), but argue any error was harmless. We agree with the People and affirm.

Defendant Vincent Michael Lombardo appeals from the denial of his petition for relief pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. He contends in part that the trial court applied the incorrect standard of review to his petition asserting eligibility for relief. The Attorney General agrees, and we agree with the parties. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. In light of our disposition, we need not and do not address defendant’s remaining arguments.

Appellant K.C. is married to the half-brother of the minor’s mother, S.K. (mother). Mother had an extensive child welfare history and reportedly did not feel she could provide for the minor. Because K.C. was willing to care for the minor, mother stated she intended for the minor to live with K.C. and the half-brother. K.C. arrived at the hospital shortly after the minor was born and was permitted to take the minor pursuant to a safety plan prohibiting the half-brother from living in the family home due to his substance abuse, mental health concerns, and criminal history. The probate court subsequently issued an ex parte order appointing K.C. the temporary guardian of the minor, but a social worker informed K.C. that the Agency would not support K.C.’s request for guardianship and would be seeking to place the minor into protective custody.

This appeal lies from the trial court’s denial of defendant Robert Sisneros’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. On appeal, defendant asserted that his 2004 conviction for attempted murder should have been eligible for relief under section 1170.95 and that failing to extend the statute’s coverage to individuals convicted of attempted murder would violate equal protection. We previously filed an opinion affirming the court’s denial of his petition. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate the decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2) (Senate Bill 775), which expanded section 1170.95 to provide a procedural mechanism for those convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to seek resentencing.
We vacated our decision and defendant filed a supplemental brief following the transfer.

A jury convicted defendants Justin Matthew Gonzalez and Alexis Ivan Velazquez of the murder of Ronald Antonio. Gonzalez and Velazquez, who belonged to the Varrio Bosque Norteño gang (also known as VBN), evidently mistook Antonio for a rival gang member. Gonzalez held Antonio and Velazquez stabbed him.
The jury found Gonzalez guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and Velazquez guilty of first degree murder (§§ 187, 189). The jury also found Gonzalez guilty of criminal street gang activity (§ 186.22, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that he murdered Antonio for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). In Velazquez’s case, the jury found that he personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon to kill Antonio (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and committed the murder for the benefit of the gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Gonzalez was sentenced to 70 years to life plus 20 years for two prior convictions. Velazquez was sentenced to life without parole.

Hector Manuel Ramos appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to furnish a controlled substance (methamphetamine) to a person confined in prison. (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4573.9, subd. (a).) He was convicted in Tuolumne County Superior Court, and the appeal was pending in the Fifth Appellate District. By an order filed on December 20, 2021, the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this court.
When he committed the present offense, appellant was confined in prison on a prior 2018 conviction of possession for sale of a controlled substance (the prior 2018 conviction). The trial court found true a 1992 residential burglary strike within the meaning of California’s “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) It sentenced appellant to the upper term of six years, doubled to twelve years because of the strike.

Plaintiff and appellant Byron O. Woods brought this 42 United States Code section 1983 action (1983 action) against the Superior Court of California (the Superior Court), alleging claims for damages arising from the court clerk’s mishandling of a City of Long Beach prosecution against Woods for driving while under the influence (DUI). Woods alleges that from 2011 to 2013, the clerk failed to notify him about the filing of the criminal complaint, to correctly index the complaint, to notify Woods about fees and fines he had to pay as part of the judgment, to hold a hearing to assess whether Woods could pay the fees and fines, or to waive an attorney fees assessment. Woods alleged that as a result he was denied law enforcement jobs at unspecified times during the ensuing nine years, and denied internships with the District Attorney’s and Public Defender’s Offices in 2020.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant and appellant Anselmo Castillo with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); count one) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count two). The information further alleged Castillo possessed, used and discharged a firearm in the commission of the offenses. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d).)
Castillo waived his trial rights and pled no contest to the assault charge. He also admitted using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the commission of the offense.
Sentencing was delayed several months. By the time of the scheduled sentencing, a new District Attorney took office and Castillo told the court he wanted to seek a better plea bargain. The deputy District Attorney informed Castillo and the trial court that the office would not offer a lesser deal.

Jonathan M. (father) and D.W. (mother) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to Gina M. (Gina, born Jan. 2013) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Relying heavily upon In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, father contends that the juvenile court erred in not applying the parent-child beneficial exception to adoption and not properly obtaining Gina’s input regarding adoption. Mother’s appellate counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, finding no arguable issues.
We affirm the order terminating parental rights and dismiss mother’s appeal pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994, because mother did not raise any arguable issues on appeal.

Plaintiff and appellant Shawn M. Millner (Millner) sought a permanent restraining order against her mother, defendant and respondent Nobia Joyce (Joyce), after Joyce visited Millner’s place of employment. The trial court denied Millner’s request, finding that Millner had not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, a reasonable apprehension of future abuse. (Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1290 (Ritchie).) Millner appeals, claiming that the trial court erred.
We affirm.

Mother Y.B. appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders removing her four children from her custody pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the removal order. Mother also contends the court erred in terminating jurisdiction over the three oldest children, with an order granting custody to their father, E.G. (father). We affirm.

E.S. (mother) and C.O. (father) appeal from juvenile court orders terminating their parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to George S., contending they established that the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption applied. Mother also appeals orders denying her section 388 petitions requesting reunification services and liberalized visits. We affirm the orders.

Defendants Ike Carstarphen and Kenny Buckner appeal from an order denying their petitions for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. We reverse with directions for the trial court to issue an order to show cause and to hold a hearing.