CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted appellant Francisco Javier Dominguez of 15 sexual offenses involving 3 victims: Unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c) (counts 1 & 13)); oral copulation of a minor (§ 288a, subd. (b)(1) (counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 15)); sodomy of a person under the age of 18 (§ 286, subd. (b)(1) (count 7)); contacting a child with intent to commit oral copulation (§ 288.3, subd. (a) (count 8)); contacting a child with intent to possess child pornography (§ 288.3, subd. (a) (counts 9, 11, & 12)); and possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a) (counts 10 & 14)). The trial court found true allegations appellant had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (d) & 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1)), and two prior prison commitments (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of defendants Marcum LLP and Stan Lam (the accountants) and, cross- complainant, Marcum LLP. Plaintiff and respondent Leslie A. Andrews (Andrews) filed the underlying complaint against the accountants alleging a number of causes of action generally sounding in breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment. Marcum LLP filed a cross-complaint for fees owed under the accounting contract. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury returned general verdicts finding in favor of the accountants on the complaint and in favor of Marcum LLP on the cross-complaint.

Appellant Scott W. (father) appealed from the juvenile court’s August 18, 2021, order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his now
eight-year-old daughter, Samantha H. After reviewing the juvenile court record, father’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. This court granted father leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)

In 1997, appellant and defendant Wedson Rosa Demorais (defendant) fatally stabbed his wife’s 79-year-old grandparents, Amelia and Gerrald Hunt. He also stabbed and seriously injured his wife’s mother, Lois Miranda. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of counts 1 and 2, first degree murder with a multiple-murder special circumstance, and count 3, attempted premeditated murder; several enhancements were found true. This court affirmed defendant’s convictions in 2002.

Defendant Daniel Dominguez Alaniz, Jr. was convicted by a jury of resisting an executive officer by force, battery with injury to a peace officer, resisting arrest, and possession of drug paraphernalia, and admitted a prior prison term enhancement, and three prior strike convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c)–(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(e) ). Defendant previously appealed in this case (F076254). In her first appeal, she successfully contended that (1) the sentence on the battery conviction was required to be stayed pursuant to section 654, (2) the resisting arrest conviction was required to be reversed because it was a lesser included offense, and (3) the matter had to be remanded for recalculation of presentence custody credits.

This is defendant Victor Gudino’s second appeal from the denial of a petition for recall of sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. Defendant is presently serving a sentence of 25 years to life for possession of a weapon while confined in a penal institution (§ 4502, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant contends the record is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding he was armed with a deadly weapon and the court therefore erred in concluding he was ineligible for resentencing. We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding defendant is ineligible for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.126. Accordingly, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of sexual intercourse or sodomy of a child 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a); count 1), oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); count 2), continuous sexual abuse of a child (§ 288.5, subd. (a); count 3), and lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a); count 4). The jury also found true enhancement allegations to counts 3 and 4 that defendant was convicted of offenses against multiple victims within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivision (e)(4). The court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on counts 1 and 3, and 15 years to life on counts 2 and 4.

Defendant and appellant Kevin Harville appeals from a post-judgment order denying his Penal Code section 1170.95 petition to vacate his second degree murder conviction and obtain resentencing relief under the procedures established by Senate Bill No. 1437. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court and has done so. We find no error and affirm the order.

H.E. (Mother) is the mother of one-year-old Z.O., 10-year-old Zal.M. (Zal), and eight-year-old Zac.M. (Zac). Mother challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional orders bypassing her reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) as to Zal and Zac. We find no error and affirm.

In this dependency proceeding, K.G. (Mother) filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 asking the juvenile court to return her children to her care or, in the alternative, reinstate her reunification services. (Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The court denied Mother’s petitions without holding an evidentiary hearing and terminated parental rights to the children, L.K. and J.K. Mother appeals from the order denying her section 388 petitions and the order terminating parental rights. Je.K. (Father) appeals from the order terminating parental rights. We affirm.

Mother filed an appeal following a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing at which her three children, P.L. (age 4 at time of petition), E. L. (age 11 months), and G. A. (age 2), were placed with their non-custodial presumed father and the dependency was terminated, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 361.2. The children came to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (Department) due to mother’s failure to supervise the children, neglect of their medical, dental, and other needs, as well as her history of unresolved mental illness for which she did not take medication. The noncustodial presumed father A.L.’s home was approved for placement for an extended visit, and at the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the court awarded him physical custody of the children and dismissed the dependency. Mother appeals.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Vandallas Smalls of domestic violence and making a criminal threat. He contends the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting evidence that he had abused three domestic partners and by declining to stay his sentence for the criminal threat conviction. We reject defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant, Jose Gonzalez sexually abused his step-granddaughter, B.C., for 10 years, beginning when B.C. was six years old. Defendant appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for attempted sexual intercourse or sodomy of a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 288.7, subd. (a) ; count 1); two felony counts of committing three or more sexual acts upon a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288.5; counts 2 & 3); aggravated sexual penetration of a child under 14 years (§§ 269, subd. (a)(5), 289, subd. (a); count 4); aggravated oral copulation of a child under 14 years (§§ 269, subd. (a)(4), 288a, subds. (c)(2), (c)(3); count 5); attempted oral copulation by force (§§ 664, 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A); count 6); and misdemeanor indecent exposure (§ 314, subd. (1); count 7). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 65 years and four months to life.

Defendant Tram Bao Le appeals from an order of the trial court denying her motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction prohibiting Le and “anyone else acting on behalf of [Le] . . . from performing any construction work” on Le’s home.