CA Unpub Decisions

A.H. (Mother), the mother of 15-year-old M.T. and two year-old K.T., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to K.T. She contends the sibling relationship exception to the legislative preference for adoption requires reversal. The contention is unsupported by the record, so we affirm.

Keith Brazel Slaughter pled no contest to first degree residential robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a)) with a firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). On appeal, the parties agree that subsequent amendments to section 1170 render Slaughter eligible for a reduced sentence. We agree and therefore remand the case to give him a chance to seek the benefit of the new law in the trial court.

Plaintiffs Ronald and Victoria Hogan (the Hogans) appeal from an order denying their motion to tax costs on appeal claimed by defendants DeAngelis Construction, Inc., Marvin DeAngelis, Gary Pope, and DeAngelis-Pope Homes (the developers or developer defendants). The Hogans challenge the award of costs for appeal bond premiums the developers paid in connection with pursuing their successful appeals. We affirm.

M.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and the order after the section 366.26 hearing terminating her parental rights to her twin daughters, G.M. and E.M. On appeal, mother argues that the juvenile court erred when it denied her section 388 petition because she established changed circumstances and reunification was in the twins’ best interests. She also argues that the trial court erroneously determined that she failed to establish the parental benefit exception to adoption (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) when it terminated her parental rights, and the juvenile court may have considered factors deemed inappropriate by In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.). We conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s section 388 petition because she failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that returning the twins to her care would be in their best interests. We further

Heather S. (mother) and Alex C. (father) (collectively, the parents) appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to their now three-year-old son, L.C., and two-year-old daughter, C.C. (the children), and selecting adoption as their permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26). Mother contends the juvenile court erred by declining to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). Father, joined by mother, contends remand is required because the juvenile court failed to correctly apply our Supreme Court’s recent decision of In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.). We affirm.

In 1989, a jury convicted petitioner Derrick Carson of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), with the special circumstances the murder was committed during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery and burglary (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), (a)(17)(vii)). (People v. Carson (July 26, 1991, F013403) [nonpub. opn.] (Carson).) Petitioner was sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of parole.

Defendant Alex Williams contends on appeal that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion to dismiss a prior felony “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c)–(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(e)); and (2) requests this court independently review the record of the in camera hearing of defendant’s Pitchess motion. We affirm.

Appellant James Clinton Davies surreptitiously recorded a conversation he had with his local police chief while they were in the chief’s office. A police lieutenant was also present, and appellant discussed his own uncharged criminal matter with the chief. Unbeknownst to the officers, appellant recorded the conversation as a video on his cellular phone. A short time later, appellant posted the video on Facebook.

Plaintiffs sued the County of Tulare (County) and others for personal injuries and wrongful death suffered in a traffic accident at an intersection next to an elementary school. Plaintiffs alleged County was liable for a dangerous condition of public property and negligence per se. County demurred, contending the intersection, which had no marked crosswalks and was controlled by a two-way stop, was not a dangerous condition when used with due care. (Gov. Code, § 830, subd. (a)) County also contended it was immune from liability for failing to provide additional regulatory and warnings signs pursuant to sections 830.4 and 830.8. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal.

T.D. (father) appeals from a juvenile court’s disposition order removing his children, H.D. and O.D., from his custody. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support removal. He also argues the court erred in issuing a protective order as to his children. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Adrien Joseph Sotomayor was charged with first degree murder and attempted murder in connection with a shooting that injured three people, one fatally. The jury found him guilty, however, only of lesser included offenses, specifically, one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code , § 192, subd. (a)) and two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter (§§192, 664), as well as firearms use enhancements. Sotomayor admitted to a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to a total prison term of 38 years, eight months.

Defendants and appellants Joseph Hernandez and Christopher Navarrette were tried together and convicted on charges, including first degree murder, relating to the fatal shooting of Roger Lazaro. The trial court sentenced Hernandez to 50-years-to-life, and it sentenced Navarrette to 52-years-to-life.

In 2011, Ralph Cole pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana in a custodial facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.6). He was sentenced to three years in prison, to be served consecutively to his existing prison terms.

Antonio Cruz appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of administrative mandamus seeking to invalidate a decision of the defendant Personnel Appeal Board of the City of El Centro (Board). The Board adopted a hearing officer’s decision upholding the defendant City of El Centro’s (City) termination of Cruz’s employment as a police officer.