CA Unpub Decisions

Over petitioner Julia Sullivan’s objection, the trial court issued an order granting real party in interest Shawn Sullivan authority to determine whether the parties’ minor children should be vaccinated. Julia petitions this court for a writ of mandate, prohibition, or other appropriate relief, alleging the trial court erred in issuing the order. She claims the trial court abused its discretion by hearing the issue without first requiring the parties to participate in child custody mediation. She further contends the court abused its discretion in refusing her request for an evidentiary hearing. We conclude the trial court erred by failing to require the parties to first mediate the issue as required by Family Code sections 3170 and 3175. We will grant the petition and issue a writ of mandate.

After a jury trial, appellant M.M. was found to be gravely disabled within the meaning of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). The trial court appointed respondent Public Guardian for Santa Clara County as conservator of the person of appellant. On appeal, appellant contends that section 5350, subdivision (e)(4) of the LPS Act precluded him from relying on a “third-party assistance defense” at trial in violation of his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. He argues that the matter should be remanded for a new trial where he can present such a defense.

L.G. (Mother) is the mother of B.E., who was taken into protective custody at the age of four. Mother appeals from the orders, entered in October 2021, denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 (further code references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code) and terminating her parental rights pursuant to section 366.26. B.E.’s father, A.E. (Father), did not appeal from the order terminating his parental rights. Mother contends the juvenile court violated her due process rights by denying her section 388 petition and terminating parental rights because, she claims, she had not been given adequate notice of the dependency proceedings.

Defendant Talal Chami appeals, pursuant to Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (a), from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.

Johnny Jose Perez appeals from his conviction on charges of possession of methamphetamine (Pen. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 5) and possession of methamphetamine while armed with a firearm (§ 11370.1, subd.(a); count 7). He argues the evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion he had constructive possession of the methamphetamine. He also argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal on the same grounds.

The sole issue on appeal is the propriety of the trial court’s $6,750 sanctions award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 against several nonparties who objected to two postjudgment document subpoenas and then unsuccessfully opposed motions to compel compliance. Finding no error, we affirm the sanctions order. We also award respondents their appellate attorney fees in an amount to be determined by the trial court.

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., appeals from an order imposing more than $7,000 in discovery sanctions for failing to appear at a court-ordered deposition. Sunbelt argues, in essence, that the belated inclusion of document demands in the deposition notice excused it from having to appear. Sunbelt also contends respondent Ralph Camacho presented no evidence to support the amount of the sanctions imposed.

Appellant and defendant Melvin Demonte Harrison entered pleas and admissions in several cases, repeatedly violated probation and the terms of his Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) and was sentenced to custodial time. On appeal, his appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We ordered the parties to file briefs on the validity of the court’s imposition of fines and fees in light of subsequently enacted legislation. As explained below, we remand the matter for the limited purpose of addressing certain fines and fees and otherwise affirm.

A jury convicted Kasey Allen Questo (defendant) of attempted carjacking and attempted grand theft in Tuolumne County case No. CRF55819 (“Jury Case”). The jury also found true special allegations that (1) defendant suffered a prior prison conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, former subdivision (b); and (2) defendant committed the offenses while released from custody on bail pursuant to section 12022.1. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)

G.L. (father) appeals the termination of his parental rights. (Welf. and Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b) & (g), unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code.) He argues the court erred in deciding the beneficial parental relationship exception did not apply. We affirm.

In 2004, Brian Robert Clark pled guilty to robbery and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. In 2021, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended recalling and reducing his sentence based on his exemplary behavior while in prison under the provisions of what was then Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The trial court declined the CDCR’s recommendation.

In 2004, Brian Robert Clark pled guilty to robbery and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. In 2021, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended recalling and reducing his sentence based on his exemplary behavior while in prison under the provisions of what was then Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The trial court declined the CDCR’s recommendation.

S.U. (mother) appeals a juvenile court’s jurisdiction order with regard to her children, D.O., J.U., P.U., M.U., and O.E. (the children). She contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s jurisdictional finding that the children came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c). We disagree and affirm.

A.Z. (Father), L.B. (Mother), and W.R. and L.R. (collectively, the Relatives) appeal orders denying the Relatives’ petition to change minor C.Z.’s placement, terminating parents’ parental rights, and selecting a permanent plan of adoption for C.Z. They generally contend that the trial court erred in failing to apply the statutory preferential consideration of relatives for placement pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3. The Relatives contend that their due process rights were violated because they were not provided with proper notice of their right to seek placement at an earlier point in this proceeding. They contend that for these reasons, the juvenile court’s orders must be reversed.