CA Unpub Decisions

Father Albert R. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing his daughter A.R. from his custody. We affirm the judgment.

Father R.A. appeals the court’s jurisdictional finding based on his marijuana abuse. He does not challenge the other sustained findings based on mother’s violent conduct or the history of domestic violence between mother and father. Father also does not challenge the court’s dispositional orders. Finding father’s appellate challenge is nonjusticiable, we affirm.

Appellant Anna B. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights over her daughter Genesis R. (born 2018). Mother contends the beneficial parent-child exception to terminating parental rights applies and that an option other than adoption should be selected as the permanent plan. We disagree and therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Appellant Anna B. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights over her daughter Genesis R. (born 2018). Mother contends the beneficial parent-child exception to terminating parental rights applies and that an option other than adoption should be selected as the permanent plan. We disagree and therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order.

H.W. (father) appeals from the denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition, filed on the eve of the permanency planning hearing, and from the termination of his parental rights. We affirm.

In these consolidated appeals, mother B.V. filed notices of appeal from two postdisposition orders suspending her visitation with her son, C.L. Mother’s only contention on appeal is that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) did not comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.), because the Department never asked C.L.’s father whether he has any Indian ancestry. Because the Department lost contact with father, and mother’s parental rights have not been terminated, we conclude that reversal is not required. We affirm the orders, but remand with instructions that the Department comply with ICWA’s inquiry requirements if father is located.

This legal malpractice action arises from a single telephone conversation between attorneys Peter Bochnewich and Daniel Katz in the underlying action challenging the 2013 estate plan of Armie Isom. In that action Bochnewich’s clients, siblings Victoria Jo Isom Taylor, Cameron Troy Isom and Darci Suzanne Isom (siblings or appellants) were challenging the estate plan of their father Armie Isom. That plan left almost the entirety of Armie Isom’s estate to his stepdaughter Mischelynn Scarlatelli (Scarlatelli); Katz represented Scarlatelli. On January 10, 2017, following a bench trial, the court upheld the 2013 plan.
In June 2019, the siblings brought this action against Bochnewich and his law office.

Appellant Vince Flaherty appeals from the trial court’s entry of a workplace violence restraining order. Because the order has expired and the record does not reflect any request for renewal of the order, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
The parties are familiar with the facts and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We accordingly resolve the cause before us, consistent with constitutional requirements, via a written opinion with reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261–1264 [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate] court need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)

Defendant Gary Wayne Williams was sentenced to prison for burglary and robbery in 2012. In 2020, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a letter to the trial court, recommending that defendant’s sentence be recalled and he be resentenced under changes in the law that were applicable to defendant. The trial court summarily declined to exercise its discretion to resentence defendant. On appeal, defendant raises a number of challenges to the trial court’s denial, arguing he was entitled to several procedural protections. While this appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted a statute specifically providing the protections defendant seeks in proceedings following a CDCR recommendation for resentencing. While the Attorney General does not concede that the new statute is retroactive to defendant’s case, it suggests that, in the interest of judicial efficiency, we remand for a hearing under the new statute.

SoCal Diesel, a manufacturer of devices that communicate with computers on truck engines, sued Extrasensory Software, a competitor, and Ira and Robyn Emus, its principals, for trade secret misappropriation, alleging defendants stole an algorithm used in SoCal’s products. After presentation of the plaintiff’s evidence, the court granted nonsuit as to Robyn, finding no evidence supported the allegation that she misappropriated any trade secret. After a jury verdict in favor of SoCal, the trial court granted Extrasensory’s and Ira’s motion for new trial, finding no evidence suggested the algorithm in their product was (1) similar to SoCal’s algorithm or (2) wrongfully acquired.

In a 19-count indictment, the prosecution jointly charged Appellants Sheldon McMorries, David Solorio and Ronald Lopez with the murder of William “Tiny” Knight and other offenses, including attempted murder, conspiracy, and extortion. Appellants were tried jointly before a single jury. The jury found them guilty of the first-degree murder of Knight and convicted them as charged on all other counts.
Appellants now challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a number of their convictions and contend the trial court erroneously: declined to sever McMorries’ trial, admitted prejudicial expert testimony on the meaning of gang code, committed instructional error, and failed to grant their motions for mistrial.

In 2017, a jury convicted appellants Clive Gordon and Carlos Acosta of carjacking (count 1), robbery (count 2), and two attempted robberies (counts 3 & 4) involving three victims who were admiring a new car belonging one of the victims. Appellants, accompanied by Cesar S., used guns to obtain cash from the car’s owner. When the car spontaneously started up, Cesar S. got in and drove away in the vehicle, with at least one of appellants in the passenger seat. Appellants are gang members and the crimes were committed in territory claimed by a rival gang.
The jury found true allegations that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).

This is an appeal from a postjudgment order denying defendant Phillip Morris’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 (hereinafter, petition). By this petition, defendant seeks relief from the 15 years to life sentence he received after pleading no contest to second degree murder. Admittedly, defendant shot his wife about 11 times in the heat of an argument.
Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asserting that he has found no cognizable issue on appeal. Counsel therefore asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether any such issue exists.

Appellant Victor Enriquez and respondent Yelena Sholokhova have a child together. In the parties’ action to establish parentage of the child, the trial court ordered Enriquez to pay debts he owed Sholokhova and to refinance a car loan to remove Sholokhova from the loan. The sole issue raised by Enriquez on appeal is whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the car and debts when it issued the order.
Enriquez argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the family court proceeding only involved child custody and visitation and child support. We conclude he has forfeited this argument.