CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Roberto Nava appeals from the stipulated judgment entered following his no-contest pleas. His appointed counsel filed a brief that states the case and the facts but raises no arguable issues, citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Nava of his right to submit written argument of his own behalf, and he has not done so. In our independent review of the record on appeal, we find no arguable issues.
The prosecution charged Nava in the operative first amended felony complaint with violations of Penal Code section 289, subdivision (a)(1)(A) (count 1); section 243.5, subdivision (e)(1) (count 2); section 264, subdivision (C)(2) (counts 3 and 4); section 289, subdivision (a)(1)(C) (counts 5 and 6).
On October 29, 2020, with Nava’s assent and waiver of arraignment, the trial court granted the prosecution’s oral motion to amend count 1 of the first amended complaint to correct the identification of the victim as Jane Doe 1.

Jacob Andrew Benitez is currently serving a 26 year sentence for multiple counts of robbery with firearm enhancements. His earliest release date is January 30, 2032.
In October 2020, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended that the trial court recall Benitez’s sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), and resentence him in light of recent amendments to section 12022.53, subdivision (h), which now gives courts discretion to strike or dismiss certain firearm enhancements. The trial court declined to recall the sentence.
Benitez appealed, contending due process required the trial court to hold a hearing, provide notice and an opportunity to be heard, and appoint counsel before denying the request, and that the trial court abused its discretion by basing the denial on improper factors.

Appointed counsel for defendant Marshall Curtis Scott asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (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 Spencer Moss appeals from a judgment extending his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.

Petitioner Daniel Cardona Torres was charged with murder (among other crimes); he pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of manslaughter (among other crimes). In 2021, he filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that, at the time, section 1170.95 did not apply to a manslaughter conviction. While this appeal was pending, however, the Legislature amended section 1170.95 so as to make it applicable to a manslaughter conviction. Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of this ameliorative amendment. Thus, we will reverse.

Defendant and appellant Robert Wayne Mansfield appeals from an order denying his petition to vacate his first degree murder conviction and obtain resentencing relief pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. He claims the trial court improperly denied his petition because it engaged in impermissible factfinding at the prima facie stage of review and denied his petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The People agree, as do we. We thus reverse the order and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1170.95, subdivision (d).

This case arises from an ongoing investigation by the district attorneys’ offices of several counties into the debt collection practices of Alorica Inc. (Alorica). Alorica appeals from a trial court order compelling it to comply with an administrative subpoena. We affirm.

Defendant Antoine Ratcliffe was convicted of first degree murder and other crimes arising out of a gang-related shooting.
He was originally sentenced on May 22, 2015. In his appeal, we affirmed the judgment with respect to the conviction but remanded for resentencing. (People v. Ratcliffe (Feb. 11, 2020, E063690) [nonpub. opn.].) Thus, on December 4, 2020, defendant was resentenced to five consecutive life terms, including one without the possibility of parole, plus 91 years.
The trial court awarded defendant 1,414 days of custody credits — the number of days he had been in custody through May 22, 2015, the date of the original sentencing hearing.
Defendant contends that he was entitled to 3,437 days of custody credits — the number of days he had been in custody through December 4, 2020, the date of the resentencing hearing.

Plaintiff and appellant Charles Peters (Peters) appeals the sustaining of the demurrer in favor of defendant and respondent City of Beaumont (City). Peters owned a mobile home park in the City called Pioneer Mobile Village (Pioneer Village). In 2011, the City denied Peters an operating permit for Pioneer Village. In addition, the City adopted an emergency resolution pursuant to Government Code section 8558, subdivision (c), allowing for the collection of utility payments directly from Pioneer Village residents when it was discovered Peters was not paying the water utility and the water had been cut off. In 2016, Peters filed his first complaint. He subsequently filed his Third Amended Complaint (TAC) which had causes of action against the City for inverse condemnation; unlawful taking of property under color of state law pursuant to 42 United States Code section 1983; deceit/false promises; injunctive relief; and declaratory relief.

A jury found defendant and appellant Nester Cervantes guilty as charged of the first degree premeditated murder of Chris Aguilar on July 20, 2014. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a).) The jury also found true an allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death in the commission of the murder. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) Defendant was sentenced to 50 years to life: 25 years to life for the murder, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.

M.M.’s foster parents, Robert and Emily Ismael, were convicted of criminal offenses related to Mr. Ismael’s physical abuse of M.M. M.M. sued Los Angeles County, her Los Angeles County social worker, and the foster care agency that placed her with the Ismaels for violating her federal civil rights. She also sued the foster care agency for negligence. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers to M.M.’s civil rights claims without leave to amend and granted summary judgment to the foster care agency on M.M.’s negligence claims. M.M. appeals, and we reverse in part and affirm in part

The ongoing probate dispute that forms the basis of this appeal involves three siblings—Christopher Adam Jackson, Jordan Beswick, and Rachel Gossett—whose mother passed away in 2013. Shortly after his mother died, Christopher petitioned the probate court to contest the validity of amendments she had made to The Jackson Family Trust (the trust), disinheriting Christopher. Beswick and Gossett (collectively, the Siblings) then petitioned the probate court to challenge the validity of asset transfers Christopher made from the trust after their mother passed away, including the transfer of a residential property to Christopher’s former wife, Chapter Jackson, and the taking of money from two bank accounts belonging to the trust.

After separating from his wife, defendant and appellant Michael Kennemer filed a quitclaim deed purporting to remove her ownership interest in their house and transferring the title to his name. Defendant later entered the home while his wife was not there and stole her personal belongings. A jury convicted him of willfully and knowingly offering a false and a forged instrument (Pen. Code , § 115; count 1), theft of personal property with a value of more than $950 (§ 487, subd. (a); count 2), and residential burglary (§ 459; count 3), and found true the allegation that he stole property with a value of more than $200,000 (§ 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court sentenced defendant to formal probation for a term of five years, including a jail term for 270 days.

Defendant Ruben Abad pleaded no contest to second degree murder after this court reversed his first degree murder conviction with a robbery/murder special circumstance (People v. Abad (Jun. 15, 2015, D067449) [nonpub. opn.]). He appeals from an order denying his Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing. Abad contends the trial court erred by summarily denying his petition based on its own factual determinations from the trial evidence and on this court’s statement in our prior opinion in his matter that substantial evidence supported his murder conviction and the special circumstance finding. He asks us to reverse the order and remand with directions that the court issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing as required by section 1170.95.
The People concede the court erred when it denied Abad’s petition before allowing his counsel to submit a brief.