CA Unpub Decisions

Dicks was convicted by jury in 1987 of two counts of first degree murder. The jury found he personally used a rifle and committed more than one murder. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(3), 1203.06, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5.) The court denied Dicks’s motion to strike the multiple murder special circumstance and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

M.C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction. On appeal, we must uphold the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings if supported by substantial evidence. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.) We review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s determination. (Ibid.)

Father challenges juvenile court findings declaring him an offending parent and a disposition order purporting to remove his then-eight-year-old daughter S.P. from his physical custody. He maintains the evidence was insufficient to find he failed to protect S.P. from the risk of harm posed by mother’s substance abuse and mental health condition because it was undisputed that his daughter had been and remained safely placed in her maternal grandparents’ home. We agree with father and reverse the adjudication findings to the extent they declare him an offending parent and vacate the disposition order as to father.

Ayanna K., the mother of now-two-year-old Loyalty J., appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order declaring Loyalty a dependent child of the court after the court sustained a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Ayanna contends the court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order were not supported by substantial evidence and the court abused its discretion by limiting her to monitored visitation. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a judgment following the recusal of a trial judge, the declaration of mistrial, and a retrial on past due child support and childcare owed by appellant Reginald Scurlock (hereinafter, father) to respondent Roman James (formerly known as Shannon Johnson; hereinafter, mother) for their child, A.J. During the initial trial on child support and arrearages in 2016, the trial judge (Judge Ana Luna) issued pendente lite orders reducing father’s obligation to pay monthly support to mother. Several years later, mother lodged a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Performance and filed a verified motion to disqualify the judge. In both the complaint and motion, mother accused Judge Luna of bias against her and other women who have suffered abuse by former partners. Without conceding disqualification, Judge Luna recused herself after which the Supervising Judge of the Family Law Department declared a mistrial and assigned the matter to a new judge.

A jury convicted Jesus Alvarez of assault with a deadly weapon and throwing an object at a vehicle with the intent to cause great bodily injury. He appeals the judgment arguing the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his second motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) without a hearing. He also asserts the court erred by improperly instructing the jury on the count for assault with a deadly weapon. The People concede the court erred but argue the errors were harmless. We affirm.

Defendant Ignacio Toro, Jr., appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), and no contest plea to misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)). He contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a detention and patdown search he asserts were unlawful. We affirm.

In 2009 Carlos Gallardo pleaded guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)), and he admitted the gang enhancement allegations (§186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) were true. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate state prison term of 26 years eight months.

Donald A. appeals the juvenile court’s finding he was not the biological father of now-15-year-old Kyla G., contending it was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

The trial court summarily denied petitioner Rene Maldonado’s Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing. We previously affirmed the trial court’s order, and the Supreme Court vacated our opinion with directions to reconsider the appeal in light of Senate Bill No. 775. As amended by Senate Bill No. 775, section 1170.95 now allows persons convicted of attempted murder to petition for resentencing.

Defendant and appellant Sabrina Octavia King appeals from the trial court’s denial of her petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Due to an intervening change in the law, the Attorney General agrees the denial must be reversed and the matter remanded. We agree.

A juvenile court found that G.A. committed simple assault (Pen. Code, § 240) and that the assault was committed in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22). We reverse the gang enhancement. In all other respects, we affirm.

Kirivuthy Soy appealed the summary denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. The parties agreed that because the record of conviction does not demonstrate appellant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law, the superior court summarily denied the petition in error. In our original opinion we reversed the superior court’s order and remanded the matter for further proceedings in accordance with section 1170.95, subdivision (d). (People v. Soy (Aug. 13, 2021, B307805) (Soy II).) We further directed that if the superior court conducts an evidentiary hearing in accordance with section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3), the court, acting as an independent fact finder, must determine whether the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of murder on a theory of murder that remains valid after the changes in the law engendered by Senate Bill No. 1437, and is thus ineligible for relief. (Soy II.) In so holding we rejected

This appeal lies from the trial court’s summary denial of defendant and appellant Archie Pernell Dixon’s second petition under Penal Code section 1170.95 seeking resentencing on his conviction for attempted murder. We affirmed the court’s summary denial in a previous opinion (People v. Dixon (July 19, 2021, B307528) [nonpub. opn.] (Dixon II)). Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate the decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2) (S.B. 775), which expanded section 1170.95 to provide a procedural mechanism for those convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to seek resentencing.