CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Ignacio Contreras pleaded no contest to assault and felony vandalism — the latter committed to promote criminal conduct by gang members. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) During Contreras’s sentencing, the trial court ordered him to register with local law enforcement as a gang member. It also reserved jurisdiction over restitution to Contreras’s victims, in an amount to be determined.
On appeal, Contreras argues his victims did not report any damages by the time of his sentencing, and the trial court thus erroneously reserved jurisdiction on the restitution amount. He also argues Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 333) — recently enacted legislation amending the substantive and procedural requirements regarding gang enhancements — eliminated gang enhancements for felony vandalism convictions, and we must strike his enhancement and registration. (Stats. 2021, ch. 699, § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) We disagree and affirm.

Appellant Bruce Holloway successfully petitioned for a peremptory writ of mandate commanding Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin to delete from ballot materials the name of a county supervisor identified as a proponent of a school district bond measure. The trial court, however, denied Holloway’s motion for private attorney general fees from Pellerin and real party in interest George Wylie, deeming the motion untimely as to both but exercising its discretion to reach the merits as to Pellerin.
Although we conclude that the motion was timely, we agree with the trial court that Pellerin was not an “opposing party” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying private attorney general fees as to Pellerin. Because the purported untimeliness of the motion was the sole basis for denying recovery of fees from the real party in interest, we reverse and remand as to Wylie only.

Evelynne Olah appeals from a protective order issued against her under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.) (Elder Abuse Act), preventing her from having any contact with her elderly mother or stepfather for the next five years. For the reasons explained below, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the protective order. We therefore affirm the order.

In 2013, Steven McCoy was committed for an indeterminate term to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) In 2018, McCoy petitioned the superior court for conditional release. (§ 6608.) After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the petition, finding by a preponderance of the evidence it is likely McCoy “will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior, due to his diagnosed mental disorder, under supervision and treatment in the community.” (§ 6608, subd. (g).)
McCoy appeals from the trial court’s order. He argues insufficient evidence, numerous evidentiary errors, and cumulative prejudice. We affirm the order.

Appellant B.J. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s October 18, 2021, dispositional order removing her three-month-old daughter, D.J., from her custody and placing her with her father. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1).) After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. This court granted mother leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
Mother filed a letter but failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the dispositional hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

Appellant C.B. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s orders denying her modification petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388) (section 388 petition) and terminating her parental rights as to her now one-year-old son, J.B. (§ 366.26). By her section 388 petition, mother sought to vacate the court’s order denying her reunification services and establish grounds for an order granting her custody, custody with family maintenance services or family reunification services. On appeal, she contends she met her burden of showing her circumstances had changed such that reunification served J.B.’s best interest. Mother further contends the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) because it did not inquire of John R., J.B.’s father, whether he had Native American heritage.

Ernie James Hernandez was convicted by plea of possessing a controlled substance in a state prison. He obtained a certificate of probable cause to challenge the trial court’s denial of a discovery motion. We conclude the motion was appropriately denied.

Jose Luis Lara warned a man to “not say” anything and then shot him in the stomach. As the man lay wounded, he reached for his phone but it was gone. For his actions, Lara was convicted of several crimes, including robbery.
On appeal, Lara claims the evidence was insufficient to prove robbery, the court failed to instruct on theft as a lesser included offense to robbery, his counsel was ineffective relative to robbery, and fines and fees imposed as part of the judgment were improper. We will affirm the judgment.

Jose Luis Lara warned a man to “not say” anything and then shot him in the stomach. As the man lay wounded, he reached for his phone but it was gone. For his actions, Lara was convicted of several crimes, including robbery.
On appeal, Lara claims the evidence was insufficient to prove robbery, the court failed to instruct on theft as a lesser included offense to robbery, his counsel was ineffective relative to robbery, and fines and fees imposed as part of the judgment were improper. We will affirm the judgment.

A court clerk reported defendant Mark Randall Fawcett to court security after he passed her and another court clerk in front of the courthouse, threatened to blow up the building, and told them “to try and have a nice day.” Defendant was apprehended outside of the police department, which was near the public defender’s office. Defendant was subsequently charged with threatening state officials (Pen. Code, § 76, subd. (a); count 1), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 2), resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3), and disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4); count 4). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) A jury convicted defendant of counts 1, 2, and 4. In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted a prior prison term enhancement.

A jury found defendant and appellant Brian Thomas Delahanty guilty of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460), and also found true the allegation that a person other than an accomplice was present in the residence at the time of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had sustained a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) based on his 1998 conviction for carjacking. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 13 years in state prison as follows: the midterm of four years for the burglary, doubled to eight years due to the prior strike, and a consecutive five-year term for the prior serious felony.

Defendant and respondent John Wessman was a prominent real estate developer in the City of Palm Springs (the City). Codefendant Richard Meaney (Meaney) was a business associate of defendant and codefendant Stephen Pougnet (Pougnet), who served as the City’s mayor from 2007 until 2015. In February 2017, the People filed a criminal complaint against all three individuals and, in August 2019, a grand jury returned a 30-count indictment against them. The indictment charged defendant with nine counts of bribery (Pen. Code, § 67, counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, & 18) and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery (§ 182, subd. (a), count 30).

In 2019, plaintiff and appellant Gamal F. Ghaly, M.D. (Dr. Ghaly) owned one of 75 outstanding shares of a corporation—defendant Riverside Community Healthplan Medical Group, Inc., also known as Riverside Physician Network (RPN). That year, RPN was sold for $18 million and merged with another entity. In connection with the merger, RPN paid $12,082,500 of the $18 million purchase price to its directors, officers, and others as “transaction bonuses.” Dr. Ghaly did not receive a bonus and did not approve the merger. RPN offered Dr. Ghaly $34,140 for his share, but Dr. Ghaly rejected the offer and refused to relinquish his share certificate, claiming his share was worth substantially more than $34,140.

In 2012, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Ruben Julio Hernandez pleaded guilty to second degree attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 5), which was based on the natural and probable consequences theory. He also admitted sentencing enhancements pursuant to sections 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), and 12022, subdivision (a)(1). In exchange, the remaining charges and enhancement allegations were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to 20 years in state prison––nine years for the attempted murder, one year for the firearm enhancement, and 10 years for the gang enhancement.