CA Unpub Decisions

In December 2010, Manuel Alfredo Campos entered a plea agreement with the prosecutor in which he agreed to a 53-year prison term. That sentence was imposed by the trial court. Under the agreement, Campos pleaded guilty to three counts of forcible lewd conduct committed against a child under 14 years old and admitted to penalty enhancement allegations for a prior serious or violent felony conviction and a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (b)(1)); 667, subds. (d), (e)(1); 667, subd. (a)(1).) In exchange, the prosecutor agreed to dismissal of seven other child sex offense counts, each of which either independently or in conjunction with their respective alleged enhancements would have required a life term upon conviction.

Appellant, C.O. (Father) is the father of the now one-year old child Colin O. (the child), who is the subject of a dependency case. Father challenges the juvenile court’s orders issued at a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing that resulted in the removal of the child from Father and the child’s mother, G.W. (Mother). Father contends the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings, made as to him, are not supported by substantial evidence. Father also asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it required him to participate in substance abuse counseling. We reject Father’s contentions and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

Defendant Morgan Guerrero pled no contest to burglary. The trial court granted her probation and imposed various fines and fees, including a restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a court operations fee (§ 1465.8), and a court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the condition of probation requiring her to submit to a search of her electronic devices is unconstitutionally overbroad and (2) the trial court erred in ordering her to pay fines and fees without conducting a hearing on her ability to pay those amounts as set forth in People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.
We permitted the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of whether defendant’s first contention is moot because her term of probation has been reduced to two years pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1950). Defendant objects to this court taking judicial notice of the trial court’s online docket.

Respondent Robert Lee Davis was convicted of unlawful possession of marijuana in state prison. After the enactment of Proposition 64, he filed a petition with the superior court to dismiss his conviction and argued possession of marijuana was no longer a crime based on the initiative’s provisions. The court granted his petition and dismissed his conviction.
The People of the State of California, represented by the District Attorney of Fresno County, filed the instant appeal and argued Davis’s conduct still constituted a felony and was not within the meaning of Proposition 64.
While this appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court held that an inmate’s possession of a small amount of marijuana remained a criminal offense after the enactment of Proposition 64. (People v. Raybon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1056, 1058–1060.) The parties agree this court is bound by this decision.
We reverse the trial court’s order and remand the matter for further appropriate proceedings.

Defendant Chian Moua pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm. He contends on appeal that the warrantless search of his vehicle that led to the discovery of the firearm, methamphetamine, and marijuana was unlawful because the search was unsupported by probable cause and no exception to the warrant requirement applied. Specifically, he argues that the small amount of marijuana he possessed in the vehicle did not justify the search of the vehicle and the body camera video shows that he did not resist, delay, or obstruct the arresting officer. The People disagree, arguing that defendant was not detained until the officer had probable cause to arrest and the search was supported by probable cause and exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Defendant and appellant Benjamin Hernandez appeals from a postjudgment order denying his Penal Code section 1170.95 petition to vacate his second degree murder conviction and obtain resentencing relief under the procedures established by Senate Bill No. 1437. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. As defendant has failed to file a supplemental brief raising any issues for our review, we shall dismiss the appeal.

Defendant and appellant, Jesus Guillermo Arias, filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, which the court denied. After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying three potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the provisions of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) apply retroactively to defendant’s case; (2) whether the evidence relied upon by the court was admissible pursuant to Senate Bill No. 775; and (3) whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant was ineligible for relief under section 1170.95. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant, Donyette Yvonne Clark, filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, which the court dismissed. On appeal, defendant contended the court erred in dismissing her petition on the grounds that section 1170.95 does not apply to those convicted of attempted murder. We affirmed.
By order dated February 16, 2022, the California Supreme Court transferred the matter to this court with directions to vacate and reconsider our decision in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551). On February 17, 2022, we vacated our opinion and provided that any party could file a supplemental brief within 15 days. Both parties have filed briefs maintaining the matter must be reversed and remanded. We reverse and remand the matter for reconsideration.

A petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed in juvenile court alleging Beatriz C. (the Minor) committed murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). A request to find the Minor unfit for juvenile treatment under section 707 was also filed. The Minor admitted the allegations in the petition and the court denied the motion to transfer the case to adult court.
At a disposition hearing, the court heard evidence and argument. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court committed the Minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum period of 15 years to life.
The Minor 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.

Appointed counsel for defendant Richelle Angelica Zuniga has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

A.R., father of the minors (father), appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Father argues the court erred when it found the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption did not apply. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) He further claims the court incorrectly denied his request for a bonding study. We will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

Defendant Roger Thomas Lamarra pleaded guilty to child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) and admitted serving four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, former subd. (b)) in exchange for probation and a suspended sentence of the upper term of six years on the child endangerment count plus four years for the prior prison term enhancements. After defendant violated probation, the trial court reimposed the suspended sentence. On appeal, defendant asserts that (1) following the enactment of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136), his prior prison terms are no longer qualifying offenses for section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements, (2) the proper remedy is for this court to strike the four prior prison term enhancements rather than remand for resentencing, and (3) the trial court erred in calculating custody credits.

In July 2018, defendant was living in a shed in a park. He and J.S. got into an argument about that shed. While they were arguing, defendant got into a car, “chased down” J.S., and “ended up running over him.” Defendant got out of his car and tried to get J.S. out from underneath. When he heard sirens, however, defendant ran. J.S. died as a result of his injuries.
The People subsequently charged defendant with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and alleged defendant personally used a nonfirearm weapon to commit the crime (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The People also alleged defendant was previously convicted of two serious felonies.
Defendant subsequently negotiated a plea agreement, pursuant to which the People amended the murder charge to a charge of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and added a charge for hit-and-run resulting in permanent injury or death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(2)).

Oroville Dam was completed in 1968 as part of the State Water Project and is maintained by respondent Department of Water Resources (DWR). The dam is located on the Feather River, east of the City of Oroville. In the winter of 2016-2017, the area experienced record rainfall. Dam operators released water through a main spillway, but the main spillway became damaged, and the emergency spillway was engaged. This action arises out of evacuations based on concerns that the emergency spillway would fail. Plaintiffs Francis Bechtel, Jacob Klein, Chantel Ramirez, and Denise Johnson (collectively Plaintiffs or Bechtel Plaintiffs) appeal from an order denying their motion to certify a class of individuals “who evacuated their residence on February 12, 2017[,] pursuant to a mandatory evacuation order resulting from the hazardous situation at the Oroville Dam.”