CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Rohail Sarwar has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error in defendant’s favor, we affirm.

Defendant, Christopher Ray Miles, moved to exclude a video of him confessing to ownership of an eyedropper bottle containing heroin. He claims the correctional deputy obtained his confession in violation of his Miranda rights. After the trial court denied his motion to suppress his confession, the jury found defendant guilty of possessing a controlled substance in a custodial facility. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred when it denied his motion. Defendant also argues the trial court erred in ordering restitution in this case based on his actions in a second dismissed case because the trial court never obtained a valid Harvey waiver from him when it dismissed that case. We shall strike the restitution order and affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant David Lee Neal guilty of attempted second degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon, in relation to an attempted robbery at a mini mart in Oroville, California. The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of life with a minimum term of 25 years, plus six years in state prison under the three strikes law.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of S.T (mother) to her children, K.G. and P.G., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother appealed from the termination order, contending that it should be conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California statutes. No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, mother and the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a joint petition and stipulation for limited reversal and remand to the juvenile court for compliance with ICWA and the issuance of an immediate remand.

Erica G. (mother) appeals from the order terminating parental rights to her child, E.G. (minor), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We conditionally affirm, and remand for ICWA compliance.

In September 2020, as a condition of parole, appellant Eduardo Antonio Montano agreed not to “engage in conduct prohibited by law.” In January 2021, appellant was taken into custody for making criminal threats in violation of Penal Code section 422. Eight days later, the Division of Adult Parole Operations filed a Petition for Revocation, seeking to revoke appellant’s parole for making criminal threats. In February 2021, the trial court found him in violation of his parole, and sentenced him to 180 days in jail, with 80 days credit. Appellant timely appealed.

S.S. (Mother) and Jose N. (Father) appeal from the juvenile court’s denial of their respective petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking to have their children J.N. (8 years old), N.F. S.-N. (7 years old), and Jo.N. (4 years old) returned to their custody. The juvenile court concluded that the parents had demonstrated a substantial change of circumstances, but it was not in the best interests of the children to return them to the parents’ home from their placement in the home of paternal grandmother D. S. N.-R. (Grandmother). Despite the parents’ progress in resolving a cycle of domestic violence and substance abuse, we cannot conclude that the juvenile court abused its discretion. Therefore, we affirm.

In 1991, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Karen Greenberger of second-degree murder and aggravated kidnapping. In 2019, Greenberger filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. The trial court appointed counsel, issued an order to show cause, and held an evidentiary hearing. It denied Greenberger relief, concluding she had personally planned the murder and could be convicted under current law as a direct aider and abettor or as a member of an uncharged conspiracy. On appeal, Greenberger raises two related claims. First, she contends that because the jury acquitted her of first-degree murder, the trial court was collaterally estopped from finding she could now be convicted of murder as an aider and abettor or conspirator. Second, she argues that in light of the jury’s acquittal on her first-degree murder charge, the trial court’s findings regarding aiding and abetting and conspiracy are unsupported by substantial evidence. We reject these contentions a

Christopher DeHerrera, Daniel Hiriarte, and Anthony Salazar appeal from trial court orders denying petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Based on the record of conviction in this matter, we cannot conclude that Salazar, DeHerrera, and Hiriarte are ineligible for relief as a matter of law. We will therefore reverse the trial court’s orders and remand. On remand, the trial court will issue orders to show cause why Salazar, DeHerrera, and Hiriarte are not entitled to relief under section 1170.95.

The trial court issued orders granting Elizabeth N. (mother) a five-year domestic violence restraining order against Daniel R. (father), sole custody of their three children, and child support in the amount of $3,763 per month. The court limited father’s time with the children to two-hour monitored visits every two weeks. Father appeals from the trial court’s custody order, contending reversal is required due to procedural errors. We affirm.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant and appellant Kayveon Livingston and codefendants Christopher Griffis and Alontae Green with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ) and defendant and Griffis with shooting at an occupied building (§ 246). The District Attorney alleged that in the commission of the murder and shooting a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) and (e)(1)) and the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subds. (b)(1)(C) and (b)(4)).

Attorney Yelena Katchko and her law firm Katchko, Vitiello & Karikom, P.C. (KVK; collectively, the Katchko defendants) appeal from an order denying their motion for attorneys’ fees and costs after the trial court granted their special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; anti-SLAPP statute) the complaint for fraud and related claims filed by Adie Meiri, Vietnam Nguyen, and Little Cottage Caregivers, LLC (Little Cottage; collectively, the Little Cottage plaintiffs). The Katchko defendants contend section 425.16, subdivision (c), mandates that a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike “shall” recover its attorneys’ fees, and the trial court did not have discretion to deny fees entirely. Little Cottage argues the trial court had discretion to deny an unreasonable fee request, and the court did not abuse its discretion because the Katchko defendants’ fees motion was inflated and unsupported. We agree the trial court had discretion to deny an unreasonable reque

In December 2019, respondents County of Humboldt, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, Humboldt County Planning Commission, Humboldt County Planning Department, and Humboldt County Planning Director John Ford (collectively, county) approved the applications of real parties in interest Emerald Triangle Group, LLC and Joseph Bilandzija (collectively, Emerald) for special permits to use existing buildings in the town of Garberville as cannabis manufacturing and distributing centers. Petitioner Craig S. Lehman appealed that decision to the county’s Board of Supervisors (the Board), arguing that the project was improperly found to be exempt from the California Environment Quality Act and did not comply with a county ordinance. Before the Board reached a decision on the appeal, Lehman filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the trial court. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that Lehman failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and this appeal followed

The trial court entered an order confirming an arbitration award which denied plaintiff Emma S. Brewer any recovery under the uninsured motorist (UM) coverage of a policy issued by defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). The court also granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings on Brewer’s remaining claims based on the denial of that coverage. We affirm the order confirming the arbitration award, but reverse the motion granting judgment on the pleadings and remand to the trial court with instructions to grant leave to amend the complaint.