CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant James Lakie Petty IV appeals from a postconviction order denying his request for a reduction of his probation period. Petty’s appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel informed Petty of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he has not filed one. Upon our Wende review, we conclude there are no arguable appellate issues requiring further briefing and affirm.

After Ernest Paul Cassidy III filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 and the trial court issued an order to show cause to proceed with an evidentiary hearing, Cassidy filed a motion for mandatory resentencing, arguing he was entitled to have his murder conviction set aside as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion, and Cassidy appeals that ruling.
Cassidy’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asking this court for an independent review of the record, citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Cassidy was informed of his right to file supplemental briefing and he filed a brief on February 18, 2022.
We have considered Cassidy’s supplemental brief and reviewed the record, and we affirm.

As a result of proceedings before the Board of Registered Nursing (the Board), Wenshi Ni’s (Ni) license as a registered nurse was revoked, the revocation was stayed, and Ni’s license was placed on probation for five years subject to certain terms and conditions. Ni challenged the Board’s decision by way of petition for writ of administrative mandate, which was denied. Ni now appeals that denial, and we affirm.

Appellant A.O. was declared a dependent child of Solano County in 2019. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.) In 2020, the Merced County District Attorney filed a wardship petition in that county alleging appellant had committed the crimes of assault with a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed dirk or dagger and resisting a peace officer. (§ 602; Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 21310, 148, subd, (a)(1).) The allegations were based on an incident in which appellant stabbed an employee of the group home where she was living with a fork, resisted the peace officers who responded to the altercation, and was discovered to be carrying scissors inside her waistband.
When a minor qualifies as both a dependent and a ward of the juvenile court, she cannot simultaneously be both. (§ 241.1; In re Marcus G. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1012.)

Veeva Systems, Inc. (Veeva) sued Medidata Solutions, Inc. (Medidata) and Sparta Systems, Inc. (Sparta) (collectively defendants) for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants’ use and enforcement of noncompete and nondisclosure agreements (NCA/NDAs) against their former employees violate Business and Professions Code section 16600. Defendants moved to strike Veeva’s operative complaint under the anti-SLAPP law (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) on the grounds that Veeva’s claims (1) targeted their protected acts of enforcing the NCA/NDAs in litigation, and (2) lacked probable success on the merits. The trial court struck two of Veeva’s seven causes of action—the fourth cause of action for declaratory relief and the seventh cause of action under the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)—but denied the motions as to the remaining claims, which the court found did not arise from protected activity. We affirm.

In his second appeal to this court, appellant Fabian Alvarado argues his sentence must be vacated and remanded to the trial court for reconsideration. This court previously reversed one of the counts of conviction and vacated Alvarado’s prior sentence. At the subsequent resentencing, the trial court did not strike or dismiss two firearm enhancements. (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (h).) Alvarado contends the record does not make clear whether the trial court understood at his resentencing its discretion to impose lesser included firearm enhancements, and therefore the sentence must be vacated. We agree and remand for the trial court to exercise its informed discretion.

In November 2014, a Santa Clara County jury found defendant Marcellous Bernard Drummer guilty of six crimes related to a home invasion robbery, including murder (Pen. Code, § 187 ), robbery of an inhabited place while acting in concert (§§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)), battery (§ 242), criminal threats (§ 422), and two counts of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237). The jury also found true a robbery-murder special circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and gang sentence enhancement allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Additionally, the trial court found true a prior prison term allegation (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). At sentencing, the trial court imposed a determinate term of 11 years and consecutive indeterminate terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and 15 years to life. Drummer appealed the judgment of conviction.

Celine L. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s grant of a supplemental petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 387, removing her four-year-old daughter, F.L., from Mother’s physical custody as the underlying dependency case for the child proceeds.
Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the court’s findings that its earlier order allowing Mother joint physical custody was ineffective, that the child was at risk of substantial danger, and that there were no reasonable means short of removal to protect the child. We conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s supplemental petition order and affirm.

M.M. (the child) was removed from M.B.’s (the mother) care when he was a few days old. The court eventually ended reunification services for her and set a hearing to terminate her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. At that hearing, she argued for application of the parental-benefit exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). The court found it did not apply and terminated her parental rights. She appeals this decision. We affirm the order because the court’s finding that she inconsistently visited the child is supported by substantial evidence. She has also failed to show termination of her parental rights would be detrimental to the child.

Defendant Josh Randall Samuels pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a); Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1) , one count of theft from an elder (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d)(1); count 3), and one count of driving without a valid license (Veh. Code,
§ 12500, subd.(a); count 4). Defendant also admitted he had two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A); 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2)(A)).
The court dismissed defendant’s prior strike convictions and placed defendant on probation for three years. The court subsequently held a contested probation hearing and found defendant had violated his probation by failing to report. The court accordingly revoked defendant’s probation, sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years in state prison on count 3 and a concurrent term of two years on count 1, and suspended sentence on count 4.

In 2005, defendant An Quoc Nguyen was convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, and two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Defendant’s judgment of conviction was affirmed in People v. Nguyen (Mar. 12, 2007, G035886) [nonpub. opn.] (Nguyen I). In 2019, defendant petitioned, under the then newly enacted Penal Code section 1170.95, for an order vacating his murder conviction and for resentencing (the petition). He also filed a motion for a Franklin proceeding (the Franklin motion). After an attorney was appointed for defendant, the trial court summarily denied the petition. Our record does not show that the trial court ruled on the Franklin motion.
We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying the petition because defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of his entitlement to relief. Defendant was found guilty of directly aiding and abetting the commission of first degree murder with an intent to kill.

Defendant was convicted of burglary. The People’s theory was that he entered a mobile home, while a person was present, with the intent to commit larceny. However, the evidence of defendant’s intent at the time of entry was slight. According to both defendant (who testified) and the victim, defendant entered the mobile home, announced himself, and when confronted by the victim, said he was looking for a friend. That claim was lent plausibility by the uncontroverted testimony that defendant’s friend did live in a nearby mobile home park, and defendant had spent the day working for that friend. After the victim confronted defendant with a bat, some awkward conversation followed, but ultimately defendant left without taking anything. At trial, the People introduced evidence — over defendant’s objection — that defendant had pled guilty to petty theft three months prior.

In 1999, appellant Sergio Zarate Pineda pleaded no contest in two different cases to second degree murder and narcotics offenses pursuant to a negotiated disposition; he was sentenced to 15 years to life. He did not file appeals from his pleas or the sentence. In 2020, he filed a petition for resentencing in both cases pursuant to Penal Code sections 1016.8 and 1170, subdivision (d), and claimed he was not advised and did not understand his constitutional rights or that he would receive a life sentence. The superior court denied the petition.
On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm.

In 1999, appellant Sergio Zarate Pineda pleaded no contest in two different cases to second degree murder and narcotics charges pursuant to a negotiated disposition; he was sentenced to 15 years to life. He did not file appeals from his pleas or the sentence. In 2020, he filed a petition for resentencing in both cases pursuant to Penal Code sections 1016.8 and 1170, subdivision (d), and claimed he was not advised and did not understand his constitutional rights or that he would receive a life sentence. The superior court denied the petition.
On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm.