CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Maddie Wade filed a discrimination, harassment, and wrongful constructive discharge action against her former employer, Starbucks Corporation, and former store manager, Dustin Guthrie. Wade alleged (1) Guthrie subjected her to discrimination and harassment based on her gender identity after she informed him that she had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and was transgender and would be starting a gender-affirming transition from male to female; and (2) she was forced to resign from Starbucks as a result of Guthrie’s discriminatory and harassing conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Starbucks and Guthrie as to all of Wade’s claims. Wade appealed. We affirm.

In 2005, Dharmendra Prasad pled guilty to possessing cocaine in exchange for probation. Two years later he admitted violating the terms, and the judge revoked his probation. The failure to complete probation successfully exposed him to deportation. (See Estrada v. Holder (9th Cir. 2009) 560 F.3d 1039, 1040-1041.)

Plaintiff, Jane Roe, appeals from an order granting summary adjudication of issues in favor of the County of Orange (County), on her cause of action for sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as Government Code section 12920, et seq., and Government Code section 12940 et seq., arising from a sexual assault committed by another Orange County Deputy Sheriff during the extradition of an inmate to Texas. The County’s motion for summary adjudication of that cause of action was granted, and, after plaintiff settled her claim against the individual deputy involved in the assault, she dismissed the remaining causes of action and filed this appeal.

In 2006, a jury convicted Armando Lopez of one count of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)); being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)); and two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury found true allegations that Lopez used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)) and that Lopez personally discharged a firearm during the carjacking (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)).

Steven Eugene Lemeur was convicted of one count of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), among other offenses. In 2019, he petitioned to vacate his attempted murder conviction and obtain resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court found section 1170.95 did not apply to his attempted murder conviction and dismissed the resentencing petition. We affirmed the summary dismissal order on the same grounds, and the Supreme Court granted review. (People v. Lemeur (Oct. 23, 2020, D076846) [nonpub. opn.].)

In 2005, a jury found defendant Houa Lao guilty of first degree murder and found true the special circumstance the intentional murder was perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle at a person outside the vehicle with the intent to inflict death. Defendant appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. His attorney filed a brief stating the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After considering defendant’s supplemental brief, which raises issues that could have been raised in his original direct appeal, we affirm.

Defendant Tanisha Rene Deal was charged with robbery and then found mentally incompetent to stand trial. The trial court, relying on a report from a psychologist, later issued an order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. On appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence supporting the involuntary medication order. We agree and will reverse.

Appointed counsel for defendant Logan Allen Westfall filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record and considering defendant’s contentions in his supplemental brief, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Darin Gavin Best has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record revealed the abstract of judgment listed certain fees that the trial court did not orally impose, and we will order correction of the abstract of judgment. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

In 1998, a jury found defendant Joseph Eldridge Nicholas guilty on two counts of first degree murder and attempted robbery. The jury found true the special circumstances that the murder was committed during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)) and defendant committed multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offenses. We affirmed that judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Nicholas et al. (Sept. 21, 2000, C031099) [nonpub. opn.] (Nicholas).)

Defendant Shea Bovee McKinney appeals a sentence of three years’ probation entered following his guilty plea to some charges and trial by jury on another. He argues insufficient evidence supports his conviction for resisting/deterring an executive officer from the performance of his duty (Pen. Code, § 69, subd. (a)) because the officer in question was engaged in unlawful conduct at the time of his resistance. Defendant further challenges the trial court’s imposition of certain fines and fees in contravention of

Defendant Christian Morones appeals from the denial of his resentencing petition. He was convicted of murder under the provocative act murder doctrine, after one of his accomplices in a robbery was killed by the victim of the robbery. He contends he was convicted under a theory “under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime” (Pen. Code, § 1170.95, subd. (a)(1)), and therefore is eligible for resentencing. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.)

L.T. (mother) appeals from the order in the dependency case of her child, L.G. Mother contends that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s findings that the presence of weapons, ammunition, and illicit drugs in various locations throughout the home where she and L.G. previously resided and her use of marijuana put L.G. at substantial risk of serious physical harm as described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). We affirm.

The mother appeals an order terminating parental rights over her daughter, P.F. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services did not comply with its initial duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (the Act). State law requires the Department initially to ask extended family members whether a child is or may be an Indian child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (b).) The Department spoke to several maternal relatives but failed to make this initial inquiry. We conditionally reverse the termination order and remand with directions to comply with the Act.