CA Unpub Decisions

On October 30, 2015, around 3:00 p.m., defendant shot Juan Ortiz multiple times near an elementary school. Ortiz and his fiancée, accompanied by their 5-year-old daughter, were walking toward the school, to meet their son’s school bus and walk him home.
Defendant, a member of the Sureños gang, approached Ortiz and asked him, “Hey, fool, you bang?” Ortiz was a member of the Bulldogs, a rival gang. He responded to defendant’s challenge with, “Yeah, Northside Selma Bulldogs.” Defendant then pulled a gun from his shorts and shot Ortiz seven times. Ortiz subsequently died in the hospital; his cause of death was a bullet wound to the head.
After shooting Ortiz, defendant ran. As he fled, he wrapped a shirt around the gun to cover it. Defendant ran into a nearby apartment complex, which was claimed as Sureños territory. Police spotted defendant and detained him in the apartment complex, in the company of a fellow gang member.

At the outset of these proceedings, mother had sole legal and physical custody of her three children: Emma (age 14), Lucy (age 8), and Donna (age 6). The Department filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), regarding the children in May 2020. The Department’s involvement with the family was triggered by a domestic violence incident between mother and her boyfriend, James V., in which mother kicked James out of the house. He attempted to reenter the house and mother used a pocketknife to cut him. James sustained a “big gash” on his right forearm. In June 2020, the court issued a stay-away order prohibiting James from having any contact with mother’s three children.
In July 2020, the court sustained the following jurisdictional allegations as to mother:
Count a-2: “The children[’s] mother … and [R.M., father of Lucy and Donna], have a history of engaging in violent altercations, in the children’s presence.

Gary S. appeals from order denying a motion to suppress evidence and declaring appellant a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed misdemeanor possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen. Code, § 29610). He was placed on home of probation in the home of his mother.
The evidence at the adjudication hearing established that around 12:45 a.m. on May 24, 2021, two officers with the Los Angeles Police Department were driving on patrol when one officer saw a male teenager, later identified as Joseph R., standing on the sidewalk next to a parked car. The car’s front passenger door was open, and four or five people were sitting inside the car. The officer noticed Joseph R. because he was wearing a backpack and holding what appeared to be a nitrous oxide tank.
The officers approached Joseph R. and the parked car. Appellant and the other individuals inside the car were seen attempting to conceal open containers of alcohol.

On August 14, 2019, DCFS filed a dependency petition on behalf of H.S. under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). A first amended petition was then filed on December 3, 2019, and on February 5, 2020, the petition was sustained as amended by interlineation.
Attached to the original petition was the ICWA-010 form, wherein DCFS noted that H.S. may have Indian ancestry based on mother’s statement that maternal great grandfather (Walter P.) was in the Cherokee tribe.
On August 15, 2019, mother and R.S. each filed a parental notification of Indian status (ICWA-020 form). Mother stated she may have Indian ancestry (Cherokee). R.S. stated he had no Indian ancestry as far as he knew.
At the detention hearing on the original petition, the juvenile court was informed there may be some Cherokee heritage in mother’s background. When asked by the court if mother wanted to provide additional information, she replied, “No.”

In 2017, a jury convicted defendant of one count of injuring a girlfriend (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(2)) and six counts of attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court also found true that defendant had suffered two prior “strike” convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12), served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (d)), and suffered two serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). (People v. Potts (May 3, 2019), B290757 [nonpub. opn.], p. 2.) He was sentenced to a prison term of 35 years to life, plus a determinate term of eight years eight months. (Ibid.)
Defendant appealed, and on May 3, 2019, we affirmed the judgment and remanded the matter for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike one or both of defendant’s serious felony enhancements pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1393. (People v. Potts, supra, B290757 [nonpub. opn.], at p. 3.)
On remand, the trial court declined to strike either enhancement.

Appellant Marisa M. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her daughter G.S. (born in June 2020). G.S.’s alleged father, Harold S. (Alleged Father), is not a party to this appeal; his whereabouts and contact information remained unknown throughout the proceedings below, despite diligent efforts to locate him by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Appellant attested to DCFS and the juvenile court that she and Alleged Father had no Indian ancestry, and denied that G.S. was or might have been an Indian child. Nevertheless, on appeal, appellant contends DCFS and the court prejudicially failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of state law related to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), because DCFS failed to ask unspecified extended family members whether -- contrary to appellant’s own representations -- appellant or Alleged Father had Indian ancestry.

After Janessa was born in February 2021, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a 14-count petition on behalf of the child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. In the petition, DCFS alleged that Janessa was at risk of suffering serious physical harm based on father’s current marijuana use and history of substance abuse, and based on sustained findings in a prior dependency proceeding in which mother’s children and Janessa’s older half-siblings (Miguel L. Jr., Makaila L., and Leonel L.) were declared dependents of the court. In the prior dependency case, the court found that mother had physically abused Miguel, Makaila, and Leonel; failed to make appropriate plans for the three children; placed Leonel in an endangering home environment; and allowed an “unidentified male companion” later identified as father to use marijuana inside the family home.

In February 2018, defendant broke into the victim’s apartment around 3:00 a.m. Defendant threatened the victim with a knife from her kitchen. After she gave him the cash she had in a nightstand, defendant held a knife to her neck and sexually assaulted her. He massaged her breast and vagina, asked for a condom, and pressed his erection against her body. The victim believed defendant was about to rape her. When defendant briefly moved the knife away from her neck, the victim fought defendant with her fists and feet (and eventually with objects in her home). Defendant slashed at the victim with the knife, causing multiple lacerations and serious injury to her head, arm, and hand. After struggling with the victim, defendant fled the apartment.
2. Police Investigation
Police investigated and found defendant’s fingerprints on the window through which the assailant had entered. A trail of blood led out of the victim’s apartment and onto the street.

The building the Church leased to hold religious services like bible study classes also houses a small bookstore. The Church was generally open to the public from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. during the week, but it was closed on Mondays.
On Thursday, April 10, 1997, police officers responded to a call of a possible burglary at the Church. A Church official told responding officers that he locked up at the Church the day before at about 9:30 p.m. and discovered a broken window in one of the Church’s rooms at about 11:30 a.m. that morning. The room with the broken window was locked from both the inside and out (such that someone breaking in could not gain further entry to the Church building without somehow overcoming the deadbolt) and it was not the room where the bookstore was located.

The People appeal from a trial court order terminating the probation of defendant Robert John Tubridy. Tubridy agreed to a seven-year probation term as part of a plea agreement, but the Legislature subsequently enacted Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (AB 1950), which capped the probation term for his offenses at two years. The People argue that the court should have permitted them to withdraw from the plea agreement before deeming Tubridy’s probation complete based on AB 1950. We affirm.
In March 2017, Tubridy was charged with various crimes in two separate cases, which were later consolidated. The underlying facts are not material to the issue before us. Briefly, however, the first case involved allegations that Tubridy attempted to break into a Baskin Robbins store, and the second case involved allegations that he cased and boarded boats docked behind homes along the Napa River.

On August 20, 2020, shortly after 10:00 p.m., Myers was observed driving at a high rate of speed on Highway 199, tailgating other vehicles, and crossing double yellow lines to pass vehicles. He cut a corner and drove onto a gravel shoulder on the opposite side of the road, losing control as the vehicle fishtailed and crashed into a car that was parked on the shoulder. A man standing outside the parked car suffered a broken leg which, at the time of sentencing nine months later, still caused him pain, limited his activities, and required medical attention; he also suffered “PTSD-type [post-traumatic stress disorder] symptoms.” Both cars sustained major damage, and the victim had incurred $25,000 in medical bills at the time of the hearing.

Appellants B.R. (mother) and C.D. (father) are the parents of D.D. and Z.D. The family’s history with dependency proceedings began in 2015 in Los Angeles County, when mother requested D.D.’s removal from her home. D.D. was placed with father and jurisdiction was terminated with full custody to father under a family maintenance plan. In April of 2019 (after Z.D.’s birth), problems began again, this time in Orange County. The family was living in an apartment provided as part of a program aimed at homelessness, which forbade consumption of alcohol. Father was consuming alcohol, which made mother fear the family would be evicted. The parents argued and a fight ensued. Z.D. was sleeping in a separate room during the fight, but D.D. witnessed it directly.
D.D. told social workers the fight was not an isolated incident and reported feeling afraid and sad when his parents fought.

We need only briefly summarize the litigation history, spanning over two decades, to give some context to the issues raised in this appeal. We incorporate by reference the pertinent facts set forth in our prior opinions. The original complaint, filed in 1996, arises out of business dealings between Dan W. Baer and Tedder, during the late 1980s and early 1990s. (Baer v. Tedder et al. (Feb. 28, 2018, G052729) [nonpub. opn.] (Baer 1).) It began as an action filed by Tedder, as general partner of multiple Nevada limited partnerships he created to provide “asset protection” services to his clients. (Ibid.) Tedder, who is also an attorney, sued on behalf of the limited partnerships to recover on loans they allegedly made to Baer’s two corporations to acquire real estate owned by the corporations. (Ibid.)
Baer’s corporations and Tedder cross-complained against each other seeking to determine their respective interests in the real estate and other business pursuits.

On March 22, 2021, officers were dispatched in response to a shooting. The officers located a male, Marcus M., in a front yard. He had sustained at least one gunshot wound and was airlifted to the hospital. Marcus M. told officers he was on his way to appellant’s residence when he was shot.
Witnesses reported hearing multiple gunshots and seeing a green Nissan fleeing the area. Four people were observed coming from appellant’s house. One witness told officers she saw a dark-colored vehicle parked in front of appellant’s house with the rear passenger door open. The witness described three people fighting and then hearing gunshots.
Appellant was contacted just north of the house shortly after the shooting. He was with an individual, Jose P., at the time.
An investigation determined that Christian Bracamontes was driving the green Nissan and was parked in the block where the shooting occurred.