CA Unpub Decisions

Appellants A.G. (mother) and J.B. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the three minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption applied; father joins her claims.
We will reverse and remand the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights for consideration under In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.).

This appeal arises from a petition to adopt E.B., a now two-year old child born to his biological parents, J.O. and M.B. and raised by them and appellant.

A jury found defendant Haurilio Silva Valencia guilty of making criminal threats, theft by larceny, and resisting a peace officer. In a bifurcated bench trial, the trial court found true the allegations that defendant suffered four prior serious felony convictions. Defendant now argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive five-year enhancement terms on all four prior convictions when the prosecution failed to prove that they were each separately tried and proven. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike his prior convictions under the Three Strikes law. We agree with the Attorney General that two of the five-year enhancements must be vacated. As modified, we affirm the judgment.

In 1989, a jury found defendant Jeffrey Evans guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and unpremeditated attempted murder (§§ 664, 187). It found true an allegation that defendant had personally used a firearm in connection with the attempted murder and also found true a prior serious felony allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 16 years plus 15 years to life in prison.

Jacinto Perez Sanchez, convicted in 2004 with Aviu Garcia of first degree murder with a felony-murder special-circumstance finding, appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 after the superior court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sanchez could still be convicted of felony murder under amended section 189, subdivision (e)(3), as a major participant in the underlying attempted robbery who had acted with reckless indifference to human life. We affirm.

Jovan Ibarra, convicted in 2009 following a jury trial of first degree murder and three counts of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder, with true findings as to firearm-use and criminal street gang enhancements, appeals the superior court’s summary denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 without first appointing counsel and inviting briefing. Although the court erred by denying the petition without appointing counsel (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 963 (Lewis) [“petitioners who file a complying petition requesting counsel are to receive counsel upon the filing of a compliant petition”]), the error was harmless because Ibarra’s jury was not instructed on either the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine and the jury’s findings necessarily mean it found he had acted with express malice when committing the crimes, making Ibarra ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95 as a matt

Ariana Lara-Leon appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying her motion to withdraw her admission that she violated the terms of her postrelease community supervision (PRCS). She contends the court erred when it denied her motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Proceeding in propria persona, Jennifer Slosar (mother) appeals from an order modifying child and spousal support. She claims that the trial court abused its discretion in imputing to her annual income of $90,000. Respondent James Smith (father) did not file a brief. Appellant has forfeited her claim because she did not raise the issue in the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm.

Federico Esparza appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. A jury previously convicted Esparza of second degree murder under section 187, subdivision (a). We affirmed that conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Topete et. al. (Jan. 7, 2020, B288850) [nonpub. opn].)

Mother Gloria G. appeals the juvenile court’s orders sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 supplemental petition and removing her four children from her custody, arguing they are not supported by substantial evidence. (All further statutory citations are to this code.) We affirm.

Tyson Ramsden appeals from the order granting Sadye Powell Peterson’s request to move their daughter, H.P., from California to Illinois. Ramsden contends: (1) the trial court should not have allowed counsel for H.P. to make custody and visitation recommendations, (2) the court erred when it permitted H.P.’s counsel to introduce hearsay evidence, (3) the court applied the wrong standard when granting Powell’s request, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the order. We affirm.

Aviu Garcia, convicted in 2004 with Jacinto Perez Sanchez of first degree murder with a felony-murder special-circumstance finding, appeals the superior court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing to determine his eligibility for relief. We agree with Garcia that the court erred in concluding the jury found he had actually fired the shot that killed Adrian Briones, making Garcia ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. We also reject the Attorney General’s contentions the superior court’s error was harmless because the jury’s special-circumstance finding, made more than a decade before the Supreme Court’s decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark), precluded Garcia’s petition or, alternatively, the record of conviction, viewed in light of the Banks/Clark factors, indisputably established

Jens Neufinck sued his landlord, Maria Fernandez, and her three adult children (collectively Fernandez defendants) for breach of contract, violation of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) (Los Angeles Mun. Code, § 151.00 et seq.), abuse of process and several related causes of action after Fernandez attempted to evict Neufinck for making unauthorized modifications to her property to provide a roaming area for his pet tortoises (including an emotional support tortoise). The trial court granted the Fernandez defendants’ special motions to strike the first amended complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, ruling each of the seven causes of action arose from protected activity, which included the filing of an unlawful detainer action; Neufinck’s claims were barred in large part by the absolute litigation privilege (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b)); and he had otherwise failed to make a prima facie factual showing sufficient to sustain a favorable judgmen

Guillermo Ramone Mendoza appeals from the superior court’s order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.95. That statute allows certain defendants convicted of murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition the court to vacate their convictions and for resentencing. Here, the trial court—without appointing counsel or inviting briefing—found Mendoza had failed to demonstrate his entitlement to relief. Because the record of conviction establishes Mendoza is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law, any errors the superior court committed were harmless. We affirm.