CA Unpub Decisions

On December 3, 2014, Conrado went to a Shell Station in Palm Desert. He entered the convenience store at the station, purchased a container of Mike’s Hard Lemonade, and left. After Conrado exited the store, he got back into his car and started to drive away. Then a white sport utility vehicle (SUV) entered the station. At that point, the car that had just left returned and stopped parallel to the white SUV. The store clerk then heard angry voices raised in argument and heard a gunshot. When he looked outside, he saw two vehicles in front of him, on the far side of the gas pumps. As it was near closing time, the clerk turned his attention back to his duties until he heard a gunshot and saw arms moving from inside the white SUV.
When he looked up, he saw one of the two cars, the SUV, leave the station in haste.

In 2019, 14-year-old Sienna, her boyfriend Richard, and Sienna’s immediate family entered a convenience store owned and operated by L.M. (owner) and his wife. While Sienna and her mother’s boyfriend, Adam, paid for drinks, Richard stole a pack of condoms and was spotted by the owner, who was working behind the register.
As seen in the store’s security footage, the owner came out from behind the register and stopped Richard from leaving the store. He yelled at Richard, repeatedly calling him a “mother fucker.” Richard immediately handed back the pack of condoms. At this point, the owner pushed Richard backward, apparently to keep him from leaving the store. Richard said to the owner, “[y]ou’re threatening me,” after which the owner shoved Richard forcefully and replied, “I do, I do, I do.”
Hearing the screaming, Sienna and Adam came back into the store to intervene just as Sienna’s 12-year-old sister, Bailey, came forward from the back of the store.

Manjarrez was born in 1984 and began dating Valeria in 2008. Manjarrez had a daughter from a previous marriage, and Valeria had three daughters and one son from previous relationships.
In 2009, Valeria and her children moved in with Manjarrez and his daughter in his three-bedroom house on Hidden Springs, near a freeway, in Blythe. Manjarrez and Valeria had the master bedroom; his daughter, who alternated weeks at her mother’s house, had her own bedroom; and Valeria’s four children shared the other bedroom. They lived in this house until 2011, when it became subject to foreclosure proceedings. Valeria and Manjarrez moved in with his mother, and Valeria’s children stayed with her mother.
In 2011, Manjarrez and Valeria had a son together. In 2013, they had a daughter together.
In 2016, Manjarrez, Valeria, and all their children moved into an apartment together.
Domestic Abuse of Valeria
Valeria testified at trial about Manjarrez’s history of abusing her.

The substantive facts do not bear on our decision here. In 2017, defendant pleaded no contest in case No. 16F7936 to residential burglary and grand theft. He admitted a prior strike conviction and a prior prison term. Defendant also pleaded no contest in case No. 17F239 to second degree burglary and admitted a prior strike conviction. On August 18, 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 11 years eight months. The sentence included a one-year prior prison term enhancement pursuant to Penal Code former section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant’s judgment became final on October 17, 2017.
On April 21, 2021, defendant filed a one-page petition for modification of his sentence citing section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). The trial court denied the petition. On September 29, 2021, defendant petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill 483. The trial court denied the petition as duplicative of the April 2021 petition.

The minor came to the attention of the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) when both he and mother tested positive for methamphetamine at his birth. Mother had reportedly been abusing illegal drugs for several years. Father, who also had a history of substance abuse, was present when the minor was born. He claimed mother had been sober for two years and he did not know she had not obtained prenatal care stating, “I don’t live with her so I can’t make sure that she goes to her appointments. That’s not my job.” The minor’s two older siblings had also tested positive for illegal substances at their births and were declared dependents of the juvenile court. The parents were provided with reunification services but failed to participate or to reunify with the siblings and their parental rights were eventually terminated as to those children.
The parents’ plan was for the minor to reside with father, who lived separately from mother.

In case No. CRF2002641 (641), after a convenience store denied her request to buy expired food, defendant went into the bathroom and broke the mirror and sink, causing approximately $1,200 in damages. Defendant pleaded no contest to felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)).
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for two years with various terms and conditions. Finding an ability to pay, the trial court ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), a 10 percent collection fee (§ 1202.4, subd. (l)), a $40 probation fee (§ 1203.1b), a $370 presentence report fee (§ 1203.1b), a $43.50 booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), a $5 fee for each urinalysis drug test (§ 1203.1b), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).

Carlos, Sr. owns a battery, alternator, and starter business. Carlos, Jr. is his son. At trial Carlos, Sr. testified that Carlos, Jr. had, in the past, gotten into physical fights with him and punched him numerous times. Carlos, Sr. testified that Carlos, Jr. would punch Carlos, Sr. when Carlos, Sr. told Carlos, Jr. to stop doing drugs. Carlos, Sr. believes Carlos, Jr. was using cocaine in 2018. Carlos, Sr. said Carlos, Jr. yells at people when he is angry, and that Carlos, Jr. tries to intimidate people, and will threaten to beat them up. Carlos, Sr. said that he, in fact, has seen Carlos, Jr. beat up many people.
Carlos, Sr. has known defendant for about 10 years and considers him a friend. Defendant had worked for Carlos, Sr. on and off for three years at the time of trial. Carlos, Sr. described defendant as someone who does not have a temper and as someone who does not get upset but laughs and says thank you.

Defendant argues that the trial court was required to consider evidence of his conduct in prison because such evidence is customary in sentencing decisions and would demonstrate that defendant is “on the road to reformation.” The People respond that the remand was limited in scope, the court had discretion to limit the evidence, and, in any case, any error was harmless. If there was error here, we agree that it was harmless.
Both parties agree that any error in this instance only warrants reversal if it was prejudicial under the standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818. (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439; People v. Dobbins (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 176, 182.) Under Watson, we “ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (Partida, at p. 439.) Our “review focuses not on what a reasonable [factfinder] could do, but what such a [factfinder] is likely to have done in the absence of t

On November 26, 2019, the juvenile court issued an order authorizing the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) to remove Nathalie from the parents based on allegations of domestic violence and substance abuse. The Department could not place Nathalie with the maternal grandmother because of the maternal grandmother’s admitted criminal history. Father provided no information for possible placement with paternal relatives, and Nathalie was placed in the same foster home where she remains today.
The Department filed a section 300 petition on December 3, 2019, alleging the parents had a history of engaging in violent altercations in Nathalie’s presence, and both parents had histories of substance abuse and were current users of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana.

Because mother’s only contention on appeal is that the trial court erred when it concluded that ICWA did not apply based on an insufficient initial inquiry regarding K.C.’s potential Indian ancestry, we include here only facts related to that contention.
K.C. came to the attention of DCFS in January 2021 when he tested positive for amphetamines at birth. Mother told hospital staff and the DCFS social worker who first interviewed her that she lived with K.C.’s maternal aunt, grandmother, and great-grandmother. Mother and father did not live in the same home, and father did not live with any relative. During her first interview with DCFS, mother “denied having any American Indian heritage.”
Mother has five other children, each of whom has been the subject of DCFS and juvenile court intervention. Mother’s first, second, and third children now live with the biological father of the second and third children.

Beautifull Tests Positive for Methamphetamine at Birth; the Department Files a Petition Under Section 300, Subdivisions (b)(1) and (j); and the Juvenile Court Sustains the Petition and Removes Her
When Pricilla gave birth to Beautifull in July 2020, they both tested positive for methamphetamine. Pricilla denied abusing drugs and claimed a friend gave her a cup of coffee that “must have been spiked with [m]ethamphetamines.” Johnny denied seeing Pricilla use drugs. One week later, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging that Pricilla’s substance abuse placed Beautifull at risk of serious physical harm and interfered with Pricilla’s ability to provide regular care for Beautifull, that Johnny failed to protect Beautifull from Pricilla’s substance abuse, and that Johnny’s substance abuse interfered with his ability to provide regular care for Beautifull.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
J.B. and A.B. were 14 and 12 years old, respectively, when the juvenile court declared them dependent children.
The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (Department) contacted the family after police arrested father for spousal abuse. Father, apparently upset by a comment mother made about him seeing another woman, had “ ‘burst’ ” through a bedroom door and pinned mother to the bed by her throat as she struggled to get away. J.B., A.B., and their adult sister attempted to pull father off mother. Father turned and grabbed J.B. by the throat, spun him around, and pushed him to the floor. He punched the 14-year-old in the back, then drew back his fist to strike J.B. a second time “ ‘full on’ ” before mother and the two other children managed to restrain him. Mother later escaped the home and reported the incident to the police.

On April 12, 2019, appellant filed a complaint against respondents alleging causes of action for (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), (2) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, (3) negligence, (4) fraud, (5) wrongful refusal to hire, (6) violation of the California Constitution, (7) violation of civil rights, (8) violation of Labor Code section 1101, and (9) violation of Labor Code section 1102.
Appellant alleged that in 2016, she was employed by a third party sales consultant. During a private conversation while off work, appellant “expressed private personal political, feminist and religious opinions.” Her private conversation was “illegally recorded by a hidden camera without her knowledge” by “undercover operatives” of an entity called Project Veritas.

Gutierrez and Jacobo were members of the City Terrace gang, whose main rival was the Geraghty Lomas gang. On August 7, 2011, at about 1:30 a.m., Martha G. drove her van to Duke’s liquor store. Martha’s passengers included her husband Joel, her stepson Santiago, and Santiago’s friend, Ernie. The liquor store was within territory claimed by the Geraghty Lomas gang. Ernie and Santiago went into the store to buy beer while Martha and Joel waited in the van. Santiago was walking with a crutch.
Just after Ernie and Santiago entered the liquor store, a pickup truck parked at the front entrance. Jacobo got out of the truck and went into the liquor store, where he appeared to exchange words with either Ernie or Santiago, or both of them. Jacobo made his purchase and left the store. Immediately afterward, Santiago and Ernie completed their purchase and left the store.