CA Unpub Decisions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Sentence modified and case remanded with directions.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Melissa Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ryan P. McLarney pleaded guilty to violating a domestic restraining order with a previous conviction within seven years (Pen. Code, § 166, subds. (c)(1) & (4)). He admitted three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). As part of the agreement, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the alleged strike prior (§ 667, subds.(b)-(i)) and to not oppose local time as a condition of probation with 365 days in local custody.
McLarney failed to appear for sentencing. When he was later brought to court, the trial judge denied probation and sentenced Mc

Regina Harnois (Grandmother) appeals the family court’s order denying her requests seeking custody of, and visitation with, her four-year-old grandson A.P. (Grandson). We affirm.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Jill M. Klein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Christine Levingston Bergman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2015, a jury convicted Patrick Woldmskel of various crimes related to his repeated physical abuse of his girlfriend. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Woldmskel to 29 years in prison. Woldmskel appealed the conviction and this court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether he could obtain relief under newly enacted statutes providing for mental health diversion. The trial court denied the requested relief, reinstated the conviction, and resentenced Woldmskel to the same term but, in accordance with this court’s e

Appointed counsel for defendant Arthur Alvarez II asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Based on our review of the record, we will affirm the convictions but remand for the trial court to correct a sentencing error.

Appointed counsel for defendant Andrew Oliver Boudreau filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment but remand for amendment of the abstract of judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Appointed counsel for defendant Darrell Gaines filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Lavelle Stallworth challenges his commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) He argues the trial court erred in admitting some exhibits and failing to redact others. He also argues his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to object to evidence contained in the exhibits. We conclude that only one of Stallworth’s many claims of error has merit, but the error was harmless. Accordingly, we will affirm.

Plaintiffs and appellants James Mims and Bettie Mims appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought by defendant and respondent Bank of America, N.A. (“the Bank”). The Mims’ complaint against the Bank asserted a single claim for declaratory relief. Specifically, they sought a judicial declaration that no balance was due on a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) they opened with the Bank in 2006.
In granting the Bank’s motion, the trial court determined the Mims’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, it found the claim is predicated on the Bank’s alleged breaches of the contracts governing the parties’ rights and responsibilities pertaining to the Mims’ HELOC account, which occurred outside the four-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 337, subdivision (a).
On appeal, the Mims contend: (1) the trial court erred by finding their claim is

Jose Eduardo Monarca appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)), committing a forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)), penetration of a child with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (j)), and six counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 25 years in state prison.
Because appellant pleaded guilty prior to trial, the relevant facts are derived from the transcript of the preliminary hearing. Over the course of several years, appellant sexually molested five minor children with whom he lived. All five victims were under the age of 14 when the abuse occurred.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed a brief raising no issues. On January 21, 2020, w

Oscar M. (father) appeals from a dispositional order prohibiting contact between his female companion, Priscilla G., and his two children, Khloe M. (age nine) and Kendall M. (age six). Father argues that the order injuriously affects his relationship with his children and that the juvenile court abused its discretion in making the order.
Though we find father has standing to challenge the order, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in making the order, which we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Eric Gerare Allen (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Proposition 57 motion to transfer his case to the juvenile court. His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asked this court to treat this appeal as it would when such a brief is filed pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, by conducting an independent review for arguable issues. Where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal seeking postjudgment relief, the appellate court is not required to conduct such an independent review of the record. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278; see People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503.) However, we do review a defendant’s contentions or arguments if he files his own supplemental brief or letter. (People v. Cole, supra, at p. 1039.) Appointed counsel notified defendant of the court’s policy, and defendant has filed a supplemental brief. We

In 2010, a jury found appellant and a co-defendant guilty of premeditated attempted murder and shooting at an inhabited dwelling. The jury found true allegations that appellant committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang and that a principal personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury. On direct appeal, we remanded the matter to correct appellant’s sentence, but affirmed his convictions. We concluded the trial court had erred in instructing the jury that those who aid and abet a crime and those who directly perpetrate the crime are “‘equally guilty’” of the commission of that crime, but found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Alford (Jan. 16, 2013, B229548) 2013 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 358.)

Raul Bravo and Vincent M. Martinez appeal from postjudgment orders summarily denying their petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 as to their prior convictions of first degree murder. Because the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, Bravo and Martinez are not eligible for relief. We affirm.

Tyrell Paul Hebert appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), misdemeanor cruelty to a child (§ 273a, subd. (b); count 2), and attempted criminal threats (§§ 422, subd. (a), 664; count 3). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on four years probation with terms and conditions including that he serve 240 days in county jail. Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reduce counts 1 and 3 to misdemeanors pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b)(3). We affirm.