CA Unpub Decisions

On March 13, 2019, Michael Wayne Brandenburg was charged in count 1 with felony identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) , in count 2 with felony forgery (§ 475, subd. (c)); in count 3 with misdemeanor identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1)), and in count 4 with misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that Brandenburg served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On May 16, 2019, Brandenburg pled not guilty and denied the associated allegations.

Plaintiff, an inmate who was released from prison two days late, filed this lawsuit to recover damages for false imprisonment. His pleading included class action allegations for other inmates who had their release dates miscalculated. Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the other defendants filed a series of three motions to strike the class action allegations from plaintiff’s original and subsequent amended complaints. The trial court granted all three motions, the last one without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed.

Melton Zeedore Dillard appeals his conviction for robbery. We affirm.

Defendant Elton Quintin Redick was convicted by jury of murder in the first degree (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a); count 1) and kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count 2). The jury also found true two separate enhancement allegations that defendant personally and intentionally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (d). Defendant was sentenced to a determinate term of eight years for kidnapping (§ 208, subd. (a)), plus an additional and consecutive 10-year term for the personal and intentional use of a firearm in the commission of the kidnapping (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). A consecutive indeterminate term of 25 years to life for murder (§ 190, subd. (a)) was also imposed, plus an additional and consecutive term of 25 years to life for the personal and intentional use of a firearm during the commission of the murder (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).

Marvin Vanegas was charged by criminal complaint with two felonies, forgery and burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 470, subd. (a) & 460, subd. (b)). Less than two months after his arraignment on the complaint he settled the charges by pleading no contest to an amended count of misdemeanor forgery; the burglary count was dismissed.

Marvin Vanegas was charged by criminal complaint with two felonies, forgery and burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 470, subd. (a) & 460, subd. (b)). Less than two months after his arraignment on the complaint he settled the charges by pleading no contest to an amended count of misdemeanor forgery; the burglary count was dismissed.

Marvin Vanegas was charged by criminal complaint with two felonies, forgery and burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 470, subd. (a) & 460, subd. (b)). Less than two months after his arraignment on the complaint he settled the charges by pleading no contest to an amended count of misdemeanor forgery; the burglary count was dismissed.

Marvin Vanegas was charged by criminal complaint with two felonies, forgery and burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 470, subd. (a) & 460, subd. (b)). Less than two months after his arraignment on the complaint he settled the charges by pleading no contest to an amended count of misdemeanor forgery; the burglary count was dismissed.

Marvin Vanegas was charged by criminal complaint with two felonies, forgery and burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 470, subd. (a) & 460, subd. (b)). Less than two months after his arraignment on the complaint he settled the charges by pleading no contest to an amended count of misdemeanor forgery; the burglary count was dismissed.

In 2014, appellant Kwarmaine Riley entered a plea of no contest to one count of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed him on formal probation for a period of three years, and imposed various fines and fees. Following multiple probation violations, criminal proceedings were suspended from April 2017 to May 2018, while he received restoration of competency treatment. When Riley was restored to competency, the court sentenced him to four years in state prison.

Joseph R. (father) appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his minor son, L.R., arguing that the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the parental bond exception under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) (unlabeled statutory references are to this code). We conclude that the juvenile court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to apply the exception. We therefore affirm.

Paul Kinsella appeals from the trial court’s granting of a three-year civil harassment restraining order against him. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6; unlabeled statutory references are to this code.) We affirm.

M.J., a minor child, and her mother, B.A. (Mother), appeal from orders of the juvenile court terminating Mother’s parental rights with respect to M.J. and her younger sibling, D.W., Jr. (D.W.) M.J. asserts the juvenile court erred by concluding she was adoptable, despite her own objection to being adopted. Mother contends the court erred by not applying the sibling bond exception set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivisions (c)(1)(B)(v). We conclude the juvenile court did not err in either respect and affirm the orders.

Appellant N.A. is a nonminor former dependent (NFD). While she was a minor, she lived in the home of a legal guardian, who received financial aid (aid to families with dependent children-foster care, or AFDC-FC) on N.A.’s behalf. When N.A. was 17 years old, she moved out of the guardian’s home. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) was not informed of this circumstance, and AFDC-FC payments to the guardian continued past N.A.’s 18th birthday. The guardian provided some financial support to N.A. after she moved out, but at some point, the guardian stopped providing support altogether.