CA Unpub Decisions

In 2018, defendant Gabriel Rivera, Jr. was arrested in connection with an alleged robbery and assault that occurred during a prearranged drug deal. He was charged with five felonies: second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1), assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2), possession of a firearm in violation of a probation condition (§ 29815, subd. (a); count 3), unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 4), and carrying a loaded firearm not registered to him in public (§ 25850, subds. (a), (c)(6); count 5).

Petitioner R.V. (Father) and E.V. (Mother; collectively Parents) are the parents of C.V. (female, born 2014), R.V. (male, born 2018), Re.V. (female, born 2019), and Ru.V. (female, born 2021; hereafter, Minor). Father has filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Father claims that the juvenile court erred in denying reunification services and in setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 with respect to Minor. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Father’s writ petition.

Defendant and appellant L.M. (mother) appeals from an order summarily denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions for modification filed in juvenile dependency proceedings while the permanent plan selection hearing was pending as to her two children, J.G (age 6) and I.G. (age 8). She argues that the juvenile court erred when it failed to order an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to order family reunification services and increased visitation. We hold that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother an evidentiary hearing because she failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that the relief she sought would be in the children’s best interest. We affirm.

Appellant (minor), P.M., appeals from a juvenile court determination that he committed robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. Minor contends that at the jurisdictional hearing (effectively a bench trial), the juvenile court erroneously admitted the unavailable victim’s hearsay statements to a police officer. We conclude that the hearsay statements were properly admitted as spontaneous statements made under the stress of excitement pursuant to Evidence Code section 1240, and that the admission of the hearsay statements did not violate minor’s right to confrontation. The judgment is affirmed.

In the original appeal in this case, we issued our opinion in People v. Bell (Apr. 17, 2019, D072748 [nonpub. opn.]) (Bell), affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment against defendant Kurese Bell and remanding the matter with directions for the trial court to consider any Penal Code section 1170.95 petition filed by Bell and exercise its discretion under then newly amended section 12022.53 to strike or dismiss any or all of his firearm enhancements. In resentencing Bell on remand, the court considered and denied Bell’s section 1170.95 petition and declined to strike or dismiss any of his section 12022.53 enhancements.

Andrei Kuznets appeals after the trial court granted the unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings of Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper (Nationstar); Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS); and U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
2006-12 (U.S. Bank) (Nationstar, MERS, and U.S. Bank collectively Respondents). Because there is no appealable judgment or order, we dismiss the appeal.

A jury found Edson Acuna guilty of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), with the special circumstance that it was committed during a burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)); one count of robbery (§ 211); one count of burglary (§ 459); one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)); one count of transporting an assault weapon (§ 30600, subd. (a)); one count of possessing an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a)); one count of illegally possessing ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)); and one count of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle (§ 25850, subd. (a)). The jury also made true findings on certain firearm enhancements for the murder, robbery and burglary counts, including that Acuna intentionally and personally discharged a firearm during the murder, causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced Acuna to an indeterminate sentence of life without parole (LWOP), plus 26 years to life, in ad

Plaintiff Angela Schrack appeals from the judgment for defendant Edward Dwyer, the successor-in-interest to the Estate of Lee O’Denat, following the grant of summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. The trial court found Schrack failed to carry her burden to establish a triable issue of material fact in support of her claims against O’Denat (now his estate) for breach of oral or implied contract, based on the seminal case of Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 (Marvin).

In 2013, a jury convicted Marcos Antonio Albarran of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted murder (§§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)), among other offenses. Albarran appealed and this court reversed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Albarran (July 6, 2015, D067418) [nonpub. opn.].) The case was remanded to the superior court.

Anthony Lopez Contreras appealed from the trial court’s denial of his petition filed under Penal Code section 1170.95, in which Contreras sought to vacate his conviction for attempted premeditated murder and to be resentenced. This court affirmed the denial of the petition, concluding that under its express terms, section 1170.95 provided no relief for defendants convicted of attempted murder.

Appointed counsel for defendant John Rivera filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Defendant Chantel Williams was charged with arson of an inhabited structure and assault with a deadly weapon. The information alleged defendant had a prior strike.

A jury found defendant Gabriel McAlister guilty of first degree murder in the death of Timothy Schweiss, despite being unable to reach a decision on the allegations defendant personally discharged a firearm causing death or that the murder occurred during an attempted robbery. In 2019, after passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. The trial court relied on our unpublished opinion in defendant’s appeal of his conviction to determine that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, and denied the petition. Defendant argues the trial court erred in determining the evidence supported a finding he is ineligible for relief as a matter of law without first issuing an order to show cause and holding a hearing. The People concur in defendant’s request for remand. We agree with the parties, and remand for further proceedings.

In November 2014, a jury found defendant Marcus Logan guilty of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in state prison. We affirmed that judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Logan et al. (May 22, 2017, C078017) [nonpub. opn.] (Logan).)