CA Unpub Decisions

On March 9, 2020, personnel from the department filed a Welfare and Intuitions Code section 300 juvenile dependency petition alleging, in part, that parents had left the minor with unrelated persons for extended periods of time without provision for support. Parents whereabouts were then unknown. On March 10, 2020, the juvenile court detained the minor. Parents did not appear at the detention hearing. The court ordered parents to complete ICWA-020 forms.
In the jurisdiction and disposition report filed May 28, 2020, the social worker opined ICWA did not apply. On March 13, 2020, mother informed the social worker that neither she nor her family had any Native American ancestry or heritage. The social worker met with father on March 13, 2020; he also denied that either he or his family had any Native American ancestry or heritage. The social worker recommended the court render a finding that the minor would not come under the provisions of ICWA.

In July 2020, DPSS intervened when it was alleged that father had absconded with Ja.M. Mother indicated father suffered from bipolar disorder, but, when police arrived, they informed mother that they could not get the child back because there were no Family Law orders granting her custody. Father’s version of the event differed significantly: he stated the children were with him and that he had gone to mother’s residence to get clothing, finding mother and the boyfriend in an argument. He was only able to extricate Ja.M. from the scene where the boyfriend had grabbed H.M., wrapping her tightly in a blanket and putting her in a car. Mother, who was bruised, started to leave, upsetting the children. The boyfriend pushed and threatened father while he was holding Ja.M., while mother put the other children in the house.

In March 2021, the Agency filed a section 300 petition alleging that after his birth, G.V. tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, opiates, and marijuana, and that he suffered withdrawal symptoms. In July 2021, Mother was incarcerated at the Las Colinas Detention and Reentry Facility (Las Colinas). Mother represented to the Agency that she could not complete any reunification services due to her “level” at Las Colinas but that she was willing to engage in services.
In August 2021, the juvenile court found true the allegations in the petition. At the disposition hearing in early December 2021, the juvenile court ordered the Agency to provide Mother with reunification services consistent with her case plan. Mother’s case plan included substance abuse treatment and parenting education.

In June 2021 Contreras pleaded guilty in two separate cases to (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm (No. SCD287881); and (2) unlawfully possessing ammunition (No. SCD285549). (Pen. Code, §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 30305, subd. (a)(1).) In a third case (No. SCS317985), he pled guilty to possessing a billy club. (§ 22210.)
In a single sentencing hearing the court addressed all three of Contreras’s cases, granting two years’ probation with one year in jail (less specified credits) to run concurrently. In each case the court imposed an electronics search condition of probation which states:
“The defendant shall: [¶] . . . [¶]

“n. Submit . . . computers, and recordable media including electronic devices to search at any time with or without a warrant, and with or without reasonable cause, when required by [a probation officer] or law enforcement officer. [¶] . . . [¶]

In June 2021 Contreras pleaded guilty in two separate cases to (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm (No. SCD287881); and (2) unlawfully possessing ammunition (No. SCD285549). (Pen. Code, §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 30305, subd. (a)(1).) In a third case (No. SCS317985), he pled guilty to possessing a billy club. (§ 22210.)
In a single sentencing hearing the court addressed all three of Contreras’s cases, granting two years’ probation with one year in jail (less specified credits) to run concurrently. In each case the court imposed an electronics search condition of probation which states:
“The defendant shall: [¶] . . . [¶]

“n. Submit . . . computers, and recordable media including electronic devices to search at any time with or without a warrant, and with or without reasonable cause, when required by [a probation officer] or law enforcement officer. [¶] . . . [¶]

In an amended information, Oliva was charged with 21 felony counts for his repeated sexual abuse of Jane 1, Jane 2, and Jane 3, and physical abuse of John:
Counts 1 and 2: oral copulation with a child 10 years old or younger, committed against Jane 1 between July 4, 2007 and July 4, 2009 (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b));
Counts 3 and 4: forcible lewd act on a child under 14, committed against Jane 1 between September 9, 2010 and July 4, 2013 by placing her mouth onto his “crotch area” (§ 288, subd. (b)(1));
Counts 5 and 6: forcible lewd act on a child under 14, committed against Jane 1 between July 4, 2012 and July 4, 2013 by placing her “crotch onto [his] crotch area” (§ 288, subd. (b)(1));
Counts 7 and 8: forcible oral copulation, committed against Jane 1 between July 4, 2013 and July 4, 2017 (former § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A), now § 287, subd. (c)(2)(A));
Counts 9 and 10: forcible rape, committed against Jane 1 between July 4, 2013 and July 4, 2017 (§ 261, subd. (a)(2));

Defendant was a passenger in a car that was found by law enforcement to contain 155.6 grams of heroin and 66.8 grams of methamphetamine. On December 2, 2020, defendant pled no contest to sale or transportation of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), sale or transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and admitted a prior strike. The plea included a sentence of eight years, comprised of the middle term of four years for the heroin charge, doubled for the prior strike, and presentence release on own recognizance under a Cruz waiver. He also agreed he would serve 12 years if he did not appear for sentencing. This was a package deal plea along with his codefendant, the driver of the car.
Defendant did not appear for sentencing on the prior case so additional charges were filed in a new case related to his failure to appear.
On February 17, 2021, the trial court granted defendant’s Marsden motion and appointed him new counsel.

Joseph originally came to the attention of the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) in March 2016 when he was born with alcohol in his system. Mother admitted to drinking alcohol throughout her pregnancy, and father agreed to safeguard Joseph in light of mother’s substance abuse. However, the Agency lost track of the family when they moved.
The family again came to the Agency’s attention when mother gave birth to Joseph’s brother, M.V., prematurely at 28 weeks in December 2018. M.V. tested positive for alcohol, and mother admitted to drinking alcohol throughout her pregnancy until approximately one month before M.V. was born. Father told the Agency that Joseph lived with him because of father’s concerns about mother’s drinking problem. While father worked, Joseph was cared for by relatives. Mother told the Agency that she and father were still in a relationship, although they lived separately.

Around 2:34 p.m. on October 20, 2016, M.G. parked his car in front of a relative’s house on High Street, in Sacramento’s Del Paso Heights neighborhood. When he got out of the car, a bullet struck him in the groin. Another 10 to 14 shots, from at least two guns, were fired at M.G.
Witness No. 1 was repairing a fence at a nearby house that day, and he saw the shooting as he crossed the street to borrow a ladder. He remembered a dark-colored sedan that sped away after the shooting had been parked in a crooked manner on the street.
Witness No. 2 was on her front porch when she heard multiple shots and ran inside with her son. When she looked at High Street through her front window, she saw a black Lexus backing out of High Street. A lighter colored car left the area headed in the same direction just before the black Lexus.
Police found two sets of shell casings at the scene of the shooting, about 40 feet apart: 9-millimeter casings and .45-caliber casings.

V.N., a minor, appeals after the juvenile court found that appellant committed misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon and declared him a ward of the court. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.)
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. On May 16, 2022, we notified appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. The 30 days have since passed, and appellant has not presented any contentions or issues for our consideration.
In March 2021, appellant, then 16 years old, struck his estranged mother in the head with a baseball bat during an altercation after she violated a criminal restraining order and entered the home where minor was living with maternal grandfather. Prior to the altercation, mother, who appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine, deman

Because the sole issue on appeal is compliance with state law implementing ICWA, a detailed recitation of the non-ICWA related background is not necessary to the resolution of this appeal.
On January 22, 2019, DCFS filed a petition under section 300 seeking to detain minors F.D., K.D., and A.D., then ages five, three, and one, from father and mother. The petition alleged violent altercations between the parents in the children’s presence. DCFS amended the petition on March 1, 2019, to add allegations that father abused alcohol and used marijuana.
In advance of the detention hearing, mother and father both signed ICWA-020 forms indicating they had no Indian ancestry as far as they knew. Mother and father were both present at the detention hearing, as were the children, maternal grandmother, and paternal great aunt. The juvenile court asked, “Is there any American Indian ancestry, mother, father?” Mother’s counsel and father’s counsel both answered, “No.”

The People charged Esquivel with two counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) after he fired multiple shots into a crowd of people gathered outside a house, injuring Macias (count 1) and Carlos Juarez (count 2). In connection with both counts, the People alleged Esquivel personally used a firearm, personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)).
The jury convicted Esquivel on both counts, but found only the attempted murder of Macias was willful, deliberate, and premeditated (§ 664, subd. (a)). Additionally, for both counts the jury found true all the firearm allegations under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) through (d).
For the attempted murder of Macias, the trial court sentenced Esquivel to life in prison, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d).

The court held a preliminary hearing on January 13 and 17, 2012. The following facts were adduced.
According to Blaza’s fiancé, Randall Badger, Blaza lived in an extended-stay hotel in Torrance with her dog and worked as an escort. Badger often paid for the hotel but lived elsewhere. Blaza was still married to appellant but had “put a divorce decree together.” She told Badger she feared “violence” from appellant due to his previous conviction for spousal abuse.
Although they had not seen one another in person since February 2011 due to transportation difficulties, Badger and Blaza spoke at least once a day. During a conversation shortly before her death, Blaza complained to Badger about appellant “eating all of her food and spending her money and not bringing anything in.”
Badger called Blaza for the last time on June 18, 2011. Blaza told Badger she was “in the middle of something” and could not talk.

In 2020, defendant Jacob Sterling Vance pleaded guilty to one count of willful infliction of corporal injury upon a victim with whom he had a dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 273.5). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant probation. In 2021, after finding him in violation of probation, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years.
On appeal, the parties agree defendant is entitled to resentencing under Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (S.B. No. 567). We agree with the parties and remand for resentencing.