CA Unpub Decisions

Mi.R. (Father) appeals orders issued in the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 dependency proceedings for his two minor sons, E.R. and M.R. (the boys), in which the juvenile court found the boys likely to be adopted and selected permanent plans of adoption for them pursuant to section 366.26. On appeal, Father contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that the boys were likely to be adopted. We disagree, and affirm the orders.

V.V. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights with respect to minor child, G.O. Mother asserts that the juvenile court and the San Diego County Health and Human Service Agency (the Agency) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) by failing to adequately inquire as to whether G.O.’s biological father has any Indian ancestry. We agree that the juvenile court and the Agency did not conduct adequate inquiry. We therefore conditionally reverse the order and remand the matter for the limited purpose of compliance with ICWA.

In 2011, Leonel Contreras and William S. Rodriguez, both 16 at the time, kidnapped a 15-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl and dragged them into a secluded area where they took turns brutally raping and sodomizing the girls for over a half hour. The following year, separate juries convicted them of various crimes related to the incident. Thereafter, Contreras was sentenced to 50 years to life plus 8 years and Rodriguez to 50 years to life. The trial court also imposed restitution fines and various fees.

Appointed counsel for defendant Kaleb Moore 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.

Appointed counsel for defendant Katrisa Lee Jones 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 (Wende).) We find no arguable error in defendant’s favor, but have identified sentencing errors that require correction. The convictions are affirmed and the matter is remanded for resentencing.

In 2012, a jury found defendant William Vincent Silliman, Jr., guilty of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 20 years to life in prison. We affirmed the judgment in defendant’s previous appeal from his underlying convictions. (People v. Silliman (May 26, 2015, C072774), [nonpub. opn.] (Silliman).) While serving his sentence, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 1-4), which amended the law governing murder liability under felony murder and natural and probable consequences theories, and provided a new procedure under Penal Code section 1170.95 for eligible defendants to petition for recall and resentencing. (All statutory section references that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.)

Adrian B. (father) was arrested on March 8, 2020 after a two-month investigation by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) revealed he was selling drugs, both out of his home and at a local bar. When they arrested father, deputies found drugs and a large sum of money on him and found more drugs, paraphernalia to package the drugs for sale, and a loaded firearm in the garage adjoining (but not accessible from inside) the family’s home.

Appellant Y.C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition requesting the reinstatement of reunification services with her son, Antonio C. (minor, born 2018), weekly drug testing, and unmonitored visitation. Finding no abuse of the court’s discretion, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Timothy Potts of inflicting corporal injury upon a person with whom he had a “dating relationship” following a prior domestic violence conviction (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(2); count 1) and six counts of attempting to dissuade a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a)(2); counts 4–9). The trial court found it true that defendant had suffered two prior “strike” convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), as well as two serious felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)) and five prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

E.S. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to R.K. (minor, born Apr. 2017). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She contends that the order must be reversed because (1) the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not conduct an adequate inquiry into minor’s Indian ancestry as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); and (2) the juvenile court’s finding at the 12-month review hearing that she had been offered reasonable reunification services is not supported by substantial evidence. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).)

In 2019, judgment creditor Soleiman Israel Naim (creditor) sought to renew a 2011 judgment against judgment debtor Homayoun Namvar (debtor). Debtor moved to vacate the renewal, raising procedural and substantive challenges. The trial court denied the motion to vacate, and debtor appeals. We conclude debtor’s challenges are either meritless or procedurally barred themselves. However, a small mathematical error in the amount of postjudgment interest requires correction. We modify the renewal of judgment and affirm.

A former gas station employee performed brake jobs in the 1960s and 1970s, at a time when all brake pads contained asbestos. He contracted mesothelioma, and sued several entities, including Ford Motor Company (Ford). Everyone but Ford settled. A jury awarded the employee and his spouse $8.5 million in compensatory damages, awarded the employee $25.5 million in punitive damages, and found that Ford was at fault for 100 percent of the employee’s injuries.

This is a probate case in which petitioner Jason L. Freeman (Freeman) claims he is the grandson of Charles M. Manson (Manson) and seeks to be the administrator of the Estate of Charles M. Manson (Estate). The trial court granted the motion of objector Michael A. Channels (Channels) compelling a genetic test of Freeman and the remains of Manson to determine their relationship.

Felipe Jaime Portillo appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of two counts of lewd acts upon a child and two counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child and found true the multiple victim allegations. Portillo contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to discharge his retained counsel after trial had commenced. He also asserts the court abused its discretion in denying his request made in the middle of his sentencing hearing to represent himself. We affirm.