CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Roman Eduardovic Banada has 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 that might result in a more favorable outcome for defendant. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.

In early March 2019 defendant was staying with his mother when deputies from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department came to the house to execute a postrelease community supervision warrant for defendant’s arrest. Defendant’s mother allowed the deputies to enter the house and told them defendant was hiding in her bedroom; she directed them to the room. Outside her locked bedroom, deputies announced their presence and directed defendant to come out; when he refused, they kicked in the door.

A jury found defendant James Manuel Deponte guilty of multiple charges stemming from a domestic violence incident involving his girlfriend. He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 13 years. On appeal, he contends the trial court erroneously instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 361, failure to explain or deny adverse testimony. He also challenges the imposition of certain fines and fees in light of People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.

Mother Ashley M. appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for her then four-year-old son, A.M., based on domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend, A.B. Mother does not challenge the sustained jurisdictional finding that she failed to protect A.M. by allowing A.B. to be under the influence of alcohol around her son. Therefore, mother’s jurisdictional challenge is nonjusticiable.

Saulo F. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and removal order concerning his children Hanna F. (born September 2015) and Rachelle F. (born October 2016). The children had previously been in the custody of H.B. (mother), thus father was a noncustodial parent at the time of the removal. In making its removal order, the juvenile court relied on Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivisions (a)(1), (c), and (d), and section 362, subdivision (a). Father argues that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that, as a noncustodial parent, father caused the children serious harm or put them at risk of suffering serious harm. Father further argues that the juvenile court improperly assessed removal of Hanna and Rachelle from his custody under section 361, subdivision (d).

On January 30, 2020, around noon, J.B. and two others (one of whom was a juvenile and one an adult) drove a stolen car to a home in Fremont, California. There, they kicked open a door and ransacked the home, which belonged to an 84-year-old woman. They stole from the home jewelry, cash, and coins, and drove away in the homeowner’s Cadillac. Police were able to locate surveillance video of events later that day, which showed J.B. driving the Cadillac.

Brewster Phelps was convicted of attempted murder and two counts of assault for beating and shooting a man. The shooting was captured by surveillance cameras, and cell phone videos of a monitor displaying the surveillance footage were admitted in evidence. Defendant argues the trial court erred by admitting the cell phone videos, and that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call an expert witness in eyewitness identification. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Jorge Luis Mojica of attempted murder and found true the gang enhancement which alleged he committed his crimes to benefit the Santa Nita criminal street gang. The trial court sentenced Mojica to 32 years to life in prison and imposed a $300 restitution fine.
Mojica challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the gang enhancement and asserts the improper admission of that gang evidence had a “prejudicial spillover” effect. He further contends the trial court violated his constitutional rights by imposing the $300 restitution fine. We find these contentions are without merit. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Lorelei Mooney, the Herbert and Helen Schweiger Trust, ARI-DFW East & West 9, L.P., Gary Lamm, and James Mieuli (Plaintiffs) claim to represent a class of more than 600 investors who entered into a tenant-in-common (TIC) investment scheme that ultimately failed when the real estate market crashed. The lawsuit initially named 22 defendants who were allegedly involved in a fraudulent scheme to wrongfully induce the class members to sell their real property, invest in one of 20 offered properties, and defer capital gains taxes via these transactions pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 1031.

This is a petition for extraordinary writ challenging the findings and orders of the juvenile court in setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Petitioner Angel S. (father) is the father of a now four-year-old daughter, E.G., and an 18-month-old son, Malachi G. Father has a history with child protective services because of ongoing domestic violence with the children’s mother, Aliya B. (mother). This is the third dependency case involving E.G. and the first involving Malachi. Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying him reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10). We grant the petition

Appointed counsel for defendant Felix Lopez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, contending (1) his indecent exposure should be resentenced as a misdemeanor without a sex offender registration requirement, (2) he had the right to express his religious beliefs, and (3) at most, he violated a city ordinance by “parading in the nude without a permit.” Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

Appellant and defendant Aaron McCoy, a state prison inmate, was convicted of committing offenses in prison and sentenced to serve additional time. In this appeal, defendant argues the court improperly ordered him to pay a restitution fine and other fees without determining his ability to pay such amounts, based on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). We affirm.

Appellant and defendant Geno Smith pleaded guilty to willful infliction of corporal injury to a cohabitant with prior domestic violence offenses (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(2)) and admitted prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), pursuant to a negotiated disposition where the court dismissed a prior strike conviction; he was sentenced to eight years in prison.

It is ordered that the opinion herein filed on January 25, 2021, be modified