CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Anthony Presler asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

C.P., mother of the five minors (mother), appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her reunification services and ordering a permanent planned living arrangement as the permanent plan for her seven-year-old daughter S.P. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, subd. (f), 395.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding that the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) provided her and the minors with reasonable services tailored to their needs. We will affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

Appointed counsel for defendant Oscar Avila Vazquez 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.) We requested supplemental briefing on: (1) the applicability of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3), Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 5), and Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 719, § 2) to this case; and (2) “[t]he inconsistencies between the advisements in defendant’s plea form that say his custody credits will not exceed 20 percent, when defendant, by virtue of his conviction for a violation of Penal Code section 288, is actually subject to a 15 percent limit (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, 2933.1),[ ] consistent with the court’s custody credit award.” Having reviewed the supplemental briefing and the record as required by Wen

Convicted of domestic abuse, criminal threats, and other crimes and sentenced to 45 years eight months in prison, defendant Joseph Kyle Deloge appeals. He contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for (A) a criminal threat as alleged in count 2, (B) a criminal threat as alleged in count 11, (C) felony false imprisonment as alleged in count 3, and (D) assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury as alleged in count 4. Defendant also contends (2) the trial court erred by not giving the jury a unanimity instruction relating to felony false imprisonment as alleged in counts 3 and 6; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct on several occasions during trial and defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object; (4) we must strike the two one-year terms imposed under Penal Code former section 667.5, subdivision (b), because the statute has been amended to eliminate those terms; (5) we must remand to provide the trial court an opportunity to exercise

A jury found defendant Moses Valdez guilty of murder in the first degree and found a firearm enhancement true. Defendant killed the victim, his fiancé, in her apartment by shooting her in the head and by strangling her with multiple ligatures. He was sentenced to 100 years to life.

Armah Victor Johnson (defendant) attacks his conviction and 10-year prison sentence for possessing a sharp instrument in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)) on several grounds. We affirm his conviction, but order his sentence reduced to eight years.

Allan E. Serpa (defendant) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95. Defendant’s attorney filed a brief raising no issues and asked this court to independently review the record. Defendant submitted a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Having considered defendant’s contentions of error and having conducted our own examination of the record, we are satisfied that no arguable issue exists which would call into question defendant’s ineligibility for resentencing relief under section 1170.95. We accordingly affirm the trial court’s order.

Blanca L. (mother) and Alberto L. (father) appeal from the denial of mother’s request to change the juvenile court’s order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 terminating mother’s family reunification services with respect to their 11-year-old son, Samuel L. Both parents also appeal from the termination of their parental rights over Samuel following a hearing under section 366.26.

The People appeal an order dismissing this prosecution against Caleb Daniel Parish, pursuant to Penal Code sections 654 and 1385 and Kellett v. Superior Court (Kellett) (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822, 827. We affirm.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) placed mother S.M.’s daughter, Z., in protective custody shortly after her birth. DCFS subsequently filed a petition alleging Z. was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness due to mother’s substance abuse and mental and emotional problems. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)(1).) The juvenile court sustained the petition, removed Z. from mother, and placed her in foster care. Mother appealed. While her appeal was pending, the juvenile court ordered Z. released to mother and terminated jurisdiction.

Gabriel Anthony Smutz appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition to vacate his murder conviction under Penal Code section 1170.95 (Section 1170.95). Smutz and a codefendant were convicted of the murder of Brandi Olivares, whom Smutz’s codefendant admittedly shot with a shotgun. Both Smutz and his codefendant denied that Smutz was involved in Olivares’s death. However, according to the testimony of a detective who interviewed reluctant witness Yolanda Mezey before trial, Mezey had reported that: (1) Smutz had admitted to Mezey that on the day of Olivares’s death, he and other men, including his codefendant, had raped Olivares and then forcibly transported her to the location where her body was found; and (2) within hours of Olivares’s death, Smutz had arrived at Mezey’s home with a shotgun, which he directed her to get rid of. The jury was instructed that it could convict Smutz under a felony murder theory, based on his involvement in Olivares’s “rape and/or k

Plaintiff Stillwater Liquidating, LLC (Stillwater) is a fiduciary that was formed to pursue claims on behalf of a financial company and a group of investment funds. Stillwater sued Yevgeniya Chernyakova, who is the administrator of the estate of Mark Buntzman, and several entities that Buntzman owned and controlled during his life. Stillwater alleged Buntzman and his entities received, through fraudulent transfers, title to several parcels of real property and the proceeds from the sale of one parcel of real property, all of which once belonged to the financial company’s and the investment funds’ debtors.

The question in this case is whether a California court lacks personal jurisdiction over David William Hurd (respondent), trustee of The Hurd Family Trust (Hurd Trust), because he is domiciled in Colorado. Based on the facts of this case, we conclude that California has specific jurisdiction over respondent and the trial court erred when it granted respondent’s motion to quash service of the summons in connection with the probate petition filed by Jeffrey Laurence Hurd (appellant). We reverse the trial court’s order.

Appellants Farley Pollard and Chelsea Pollard (appellants) appeal from the judgment on the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents Nicholas Abramovic and Katja Grosch (respondents). On appeal, appellants argue: 1) the trial court’s ruling “assumed facts not in evidence as the exhibits upon which [respondents] based its motion for summary judgment were distorted and did not support their argument of accord and satisfaction”; and 2) “the exhibits that were not distorted do not support the granting of [respondents’] Motion for Summary Judgment as a matter of law.”