CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Erica P. (mother) appeals jurisdictional findings that her children Samantha S. (born June 2008), Sharlene S. (born May 2010), and Juan S. (born Oct. 2017) are dependents of the court. Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that she failed to protect the children and has a history of drug abuse that places the children at risk of harm. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings, and affirm the orders as to all three children.

In his third appeal to this court, defendant and appellant Phillip Plasencia contends that the trial court abused its discretion in resentencing him by (1) imposing the high term in the principal count; (2) imposing consecutive sentences; and (3) imposing a weapons enhancement on each count.
On January 1, 2022, after briefing had been completed in this case, Senate Bill No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.; Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3 (Senate Bill 567)) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.; Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 5.1), which amended Penal Code section 1170, became effective. We invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding the effect, if any, of the amendments to section 1170 on Plasencia’s case.

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), Genesis B. (Mother) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings against her under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) that she engaged in a violent altercation with the father of her five-year-old son, in the child’s presence. She also challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional orders, including removal of her son from her custody. While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and awarded Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody of their son. Mother has not appealed from the order terminating jurisdiction and awarding joint custody.

Defendant and appellant Melvin Frezell Sloan appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for vacatur of his murder conviction and resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437) and Penal Code section 1170.95, following an order to show cause and hearing pursuant to section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3).
On appeal, Sloan argued that: (1) he was entitled to mandatory resentencing under section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(2); (2) the trial court erred by denying his petition without holding a section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3) hearing; (3) the trial court erred by employing the substantial evidence standard; (4) this court should conduct an independent review of the trial court’s ruling; and (5) there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s ruling. The People challenged all of Sloan’s contentions.

Defendant and appellant Gabriel Balderas was the driver in a drive-by shooting in which passenger Anthony Paredes shot at a residence, striking and injuring a young child playing on the porch. A second person was on the porch with the child. Balderas claimed that he believed Paredes planned to yell at the people who lived in the house as they drove past it, and that he was not aware Paredes planned to shoot anyone. At trial, the prosecution proceeded on alternative theories of liability—(1) that Balderas directly aided and abetted the crimes, or (2) that Balderas was liable because the crimes were the natural and probable consequences of disturbing the peace. The jury was instructed that it was not required to agree unanimously regarding the theory of liability.

On January 26, 2022, our Supreme Court transferred this matter to our court with directions to vacate our prior decision affirming, among other things, Defelice’s conviction of corporal injury to a former cohabitant and, as to sentencing, to “reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731).”
Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) makes substantial changes to California sentencing laws in cases involving the trial court’s authority to impose lower, middle, or high term sentences. For example, it requires the court in certain cases to impose “the lower term if any of the following was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense . . . . [¶] . . . The person has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma . . . . [¶] . . .

In 2020, defendant and appellant Reuel Hulbert appealed from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying his petition for vacatur of his convictions for murder and attempted murder and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 and Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437). We affirmed the trial court’s order.
Subsequently, our Supreme Court granted Hulbert’s petition for review. On December 29, 2021, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court, with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, §§ 1–2) (Senate Bill 775), which became effective on January 1, 2022.
We vacated our July 13, 2021 opinion, and now issue this opinion. We again affirm the trial court’s order.

In 2019, defendant and appellant Daniel Dealba appealed from the trial court’s denial of his petition for vacatur of his attempted murder conviction and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 and Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437). We affirmed the trial court’s order.
Subsequently, our Supreme Court granted Dealba’s petition for review. On December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court, with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, §§ 1–2) (Senate Bill 775), which became effective on January 1, 2022.
We vacated our November 16, 2020 opinion, and now issue this revised opinion. We again affirm the trial court’s order.

Defendant Jason Zachary Kingery pleaded no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The trial court placed defendant on formal probation for 24 months.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case but raises no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. We have received no written argument from defendant.
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have carefully reviewed the entire record and determined that there are no arguable issues on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, supra, at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case.

Plaintiff Mai-Trang Thi Nguyen, a self-represented litigant, filed a civil action against defendant Alphabet Inc. After defendant failed to timely respond to the complaint, plaintiff requested entry of default against defendant. While the request was pending, defendant sought mandatory relief from default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)). The trial court granted the relief, and defendant thereafter filed a demurrer to the complaint. The court ultimately sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and a judgment was entered in defendant’s favor.

Michael Calantropio appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment after granting summary judgment in favor of Devcon Construction, Incorporated (Devcon), on Calantropio’s second amended complaint for negligence and premises liability. Calantropio sued Devcon for workplace injuries he suffered after falling from a ladder he placed on a piece of “cardboard” covering a hole on a jobsite at which Devcon was the general contractor. Devcon hired Calantropio’s employer as an independent contractor to perform certain work at the site. The trial court granted Devcon’s summary judgment motion under the so-called “Privette rule.” (See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).)

Defendant Abel Jose Rios stands convicted by jury of five counts of sex offenses against two children under the age of 10 years. Relevant to this appeal, defendant was charged under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) on counts 3 and 5 for lewd or lascivious acts against a child under the age of 14 years. These counts also contained special allegations that the underlying crime was a qualifying offense under section 667.61, subdivision (c) of the “One Strike” law (§ 667.61 et seq.), and alleged defendant had committed the qualifying offenses against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivision (e)(4).

Plaintiff John M. Kim appeals the award of attorney fees and costs to defendant Jeffrey Hulett after the trial court granted in part and denied in part Hulett’s anti-SLAPP motion (anti-SLAPP Motion) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Hulett’s anti-SLAPP Motion was in response to Kim’s petition for a civil harassment restraining order filed in October 2019 (Petition).
Kim contends the trial court erred in finding Hulett was the prevailing party on the anti-SLAPP Motion because the court struck only certain allegations in the Petition. Alternatively, Kim contends the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of the fee award. We affirm.

Jeffrey Howerton appeals the trial court’s dismissal of the action without prejudice due to abandonment. We affirm.