CA Unpub Decisions

Originally charged by complaint, defendant was held to answer after a preliminary hearing on October 10, 2018. The District Attorney of Merced County filed an information charging defendant with failing to reregister as a sex offender upon becoming transient (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (b); count 1) and misdemeanor resisting a public peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2). As to count 1, the information alleged two prior “strike” convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)), and three prior prison terms (former § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Upon motion of defendant’s counsel, on October 25, 2018, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed an expert to determine defendant’s competency to stand trial pursuant to section 1368.

Mother and her daughters, N.C. and T.C., lived together. Father provided for, and visited his daughter, N.C., on weekends. The family came to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Social Services (DPSS) on December 28, 2020, after a referral was received with allegations of general neglect and sexual abuse. Mother had called the crisis support line and requested help for her children after she discovered her then 16-year-old daughter T.C. had sexually assaulted her then 11-year-old daughter N.C. Specifically, N.C. reported that T.C. gave her a substance via a vape pen and then forced herself onto her, touched her vagina, and performed oral sex on her. T.C. had also asked N.C. to get into bed with her and pretend she was a friend. N.C. did not know how to stop T.C. and was scared. Mother noted that T.C. had been a victim of sexual abuse as a child and that T.C. had a history of anxiety, depression, and taking psychotic medication.

In October 2021, the Agency filed a section 300, subdivision (b)(1) petition for then one-week-old E.L., alleging that she and her mother, S. S.-H. (Mother), tested positive for amphetamine and opiates at E.L.’s birth. In its detention report, the Agency stated that Mother told its social worker that neither she nor Father had any Native American heritage. The Agency also reported that in May 2020 the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply to the dependency case of M.L., E.L.’s older sibling. The Agency stated that it had spoken with E.L.’s paternal grandmother in Florida, her maternal grandfather in Pennsylvania, and her paternal great-aunt who was then M.L.’s caregiver, but there is no indication that it asked any of them about any possible Native American heritage. The Agency recommended that the juvenile court make a finding that ICWA did not apply to E.L.’s case.

SOS2 is a nonprofit organization that formed in 2020 to oppose the construction of a high school at a location SOS2 deems too dangerous. At the December 9, 2020 meeting of its Board of Supervisors, the County considered SOS2’s appeal of the decision of the County’s Planning Commission to approve a major use permit for construction of the school and to adopt a mitigated negative declaration. The County rejected the appeal, approved issuance of the permit, and adopted the mitigated negative declaration. A notice of determination was filed with the County Clerk on December 15, 2020.
SOS2 filed a “verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for violation of Brown Act, declaratory and injunctive relief” (the petition) in the trial court on January 14, 2021. (Capitalization and bolding omitted.) The caption named the County and its Board of Supervisors as defendants and respondents, but did not name any real party in interest.

In 2009, the People charged Gumienny with one count of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)) and 10 counts of lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (a).) He pled guilty to one count of sexual penetration with a child under 10 years of age (§ 288.7, subd. (b); count 1) and one count of a lewd act upon a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); count 2), and the People dismissed the remaining counts. As part of the plea agreement, the parties agreed to a stipulated prison sentence of 21 years to life.
The court sentenced Gumienny to an indeterminate term of 21 years to life on count 1 and a determinative, concurrent term of six years on count 2. In 2017, a correctional case records analyst notified the court that there was an error in sentencing on count 1 and asked the court to clarify the sentence.

Minor was born in 2006 during the marriage of mother and father, J.B. (father). The parents divorced when minor was approximately seven years old. Father was granted sole legal and physical custody over minor in family law court based on allegations that mother physically and emotionally abused minor. The family law court also ordered a restraining order against mother, protecting the minor and father. It is in effect until February 2025 but allows for visitation between mother and the minor.
On August 26, 2020, the Department received a referral concerning the minor’s allegations of emotional and sexual abuse perpetrated by father. A second referral followed when the minor was placed on a psychiatric hold.
The minor reported to the responding social worker that she used to live with mother until the year prior when her mother physically abused her, so she went to live with father. The minor declined to discuss the nature of the physical abuse.

Plaintiff was involuntarily committed and confined at Atascadero State Hospital and Coalinga State Hospital from August 28, 2004, through March 17, 2017. According to plaintiff, as of October 2005 or thereabouts, his diagnosed schizoaffective disorder, the legal basis for his confinement, was documented as being in remission, triggering the mandatory provisions of Penal Code section 2968. Plaintiff asserted defendants repeatedly failed to take required action to inspect state hospitals or otherwise ensure defendants and their agents would comply with the provisions of section 2968, which, he asserted, required the discontinuation of his treatment and his release from confinement. He asserted defendants failed to ensure their agents complied with mandatory standards calling for the release of committed persons once the basis for their confinement no longer existed.

In case No. CRF-20-752 (752), during a traffic stop of defendant, a Yuba County police officer conducted an inventory search and found over 37 grams of individually bagged methamphetamine and scales. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) in exchange for a maximum two-year (midterm) sentence. Defendant failed to appear at sentencing. As a result of his failure to appear, defendant agreed to the upper term of three years.
In case No. CRF-21-131 (131), while sentencing was pending on case No. 752, defendant was again found in possession of methamphetamine. Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine in exchange for eight months consecutive to the term in case No. 752.
At sentencing, the court imposed the agreed to prison terms in each case and dismissed the remaining charges in case No. 752.

At defendant’s jury trial, his roommate, C.T., testified that on the night of January 18 and the morning of January 19, 2021, defendant consumed 8 to 12 cans of beer and played his music so loud C.T. felt it could damage his ears through the walls. Over several hours, defendant progressively disrobed until he was walking around the apartment naked. The roommate’s argument about defendant’s behavior became physical, with defendant kicking C.T. in the stomach. C.T. became worried the situation would spiral more out of control, so he went to a neighboring apartment where three women lived. When he was in the neighbors’ apartment, one of the women called 911. After he spoke with police about what was happening and they left, C.T. went back to his apartment where he again argued with defendant and defendant called him “a coward for reporting him to those girls . . . for trying to flee over there . . . for trying to hide behind the cops.”

On May 18, 2020, defendant arrived at the home of his spouse, Jenifer G. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4) [to protect personal privacy interests, courts may omit the last names of victims in criminal proceedings].) Although married, defendant and Jenifer lived in separate residences at the time because of defendant’s abusive conduct. Jenifer lived with her mother and four children in Stockton; defendant lived in Galt.
On seeing defendant at the door, Jenifer’s mother thought “something wasn’t quite right” because defendant “looked very aggressive” and she instructed Jenifer not to open the door. Jenifer opened the door anyway and an argument ensued. Defendant sought to leave with his nearly one-year-old daughter, whom he shared with Jenifer. But Jenifer, believing defendant was drunk, said he could not. Jenifer’s four children stood nearby.

The relevant facts here are taken from our unpublished opinion in defendant’s previous appeal, People v. Phan (June 5, 2020, C086120) [nonpub. opn.]. We granted defendant’s motion to incorporate by reference the record on appeal in Phan.
Defendant brought a gun with him to a gathering because he feared being robbed on the way home. After a long night of drinking and drug use, defendant quarreled with the victim and fired three close-range shots at him within seconds. The victim died at the scene. Defendant fled and threw away his gun. At trial, defendant claimed he felt threatened by the victim and the shooting was reflexive. (People v. Phan, supra, C086120.)
The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and found true the firearm enhancement allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 50 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for the murder conviction and 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.

Deanna N. met defendant at church in 2011. She was 17 years old; he was 19. They became friends and spent time together hanging out, playing basketball, and going out to eat. They began dating during Deanna’s senior year in high school. It was fun and adventurous. Defendant took Deanna “outside of [her] bubble,” referring to the religious environment in which she had been raised. They began having sex on her 18th birthday and began using marijuana together. Deanna felt like she had someone she could do anything with and “had no complaints.” They eventually expressed their love to each other.
After about a year, defendant began saying things that hurt Deanna. He told her she was not smart because she would get lost driving around town. He insulted her intelligence, saying he deserved someone smarter than her. Deanna would “talk smack back to him,” and things would escalate. Defendant would yell and lock her out of the room during arguments.

S.F. was committed to Atascadero State Hospital in June 2020 as an offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD). (See Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.) In January 2021, the Department of State Hospitals petitioned the trial court to order S.F. to undergo involuntary treatment with antipsychotic medications pursuant to In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1 (Qawi) and Welfare and Institutions Code section 5300 et seq. The court granted the petition, and ordered that S.F. be involuntarily medicated for up to one year.
In January 2022, the Department petitioned the trial court to renew the order compelling S.F.’s involuntary medication. The petition alleged that S.F. has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and suffers from auditory hallucinations, persecutory delusions, and disorganized behavior and thought processes, among other allegations.

Madelyn and Cruz’s presumed father is C.B. (Madelyn and Cruz’s father). Marley’s alleged father is William L. (Marley’s father). The twins’ alleged father is Manuel A. (the twins’ father). M.F.’s presumed father is Anthony T. (M.F.’s father). None of the fathers is a party to this appeal.
Referral
The family came to the attention of DCFS in January 2015. After questioning mother on January 14, 2015, DCFS reported that Madelyn, Cruz, Marley, and the twins had no known Indian ancestry.
Dependency Petition and Initial Hearing
On March 23, 2015, DCFS filed a section 300 petition seeking the juvenile court’s exercise of dependency jurisdiction over Madelyn, Cruz, Marley, and the twins. On the same day, mother filed a Parental Notification of Indian Status (ICWA-020) form indicating that she had no known Indian ancestry. Based on that representation, the juvenile court found at the March 23, 2015, initial hearing that ICWA did not apply.