CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Joshua James Profitt appeals a judgment following his no contest plea to the second degree murder of his infant son. As part of the plea, the court issued a protective order covering defendant’s wife and their other son. Defendant challenges the imposition of this protective order on the basis they were not victims of his crime. We will affirm the judgment because defendant forfeited this argument.

S.L. (mother) and M.D. (father), parents of the minor, appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 395.) They assert there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations in the dependency petition or to support the removal order. Father further asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his motion to represent himself in the proceedings pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562]. Father also claims the juvenile court and the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Finding none of the parents’ claims have merit, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

After defendant Steven Ray Irvine, Jr., pleaded guilty to criminal threats and possession of a controlled substance with a firearm, the trial court denied probation and imposed an aggregate nine-year four-month sentence. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion and violated defendant’s due process rights by denying him probation. We affirm the judgment.

In a global settlement agreement, defendant Corey William Woldberg pleaded no contest to, among other things, two failure to appear charges, admitted a strike prior, and admitted two prior prison term enhancements in exchange for a stipulated term of six years in state prison and dismissal of the remaining charges and allegations and several other pending matters. As part of the agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal the stipulated sentence.

Defendant Armando Telles appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 (statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated), arguing the trial court should not have summarily denied his petition. Defendant contends the trial court erred when it: (1) considered the record of conviction to determine whether he had satisfied the prima facie criteria for resentencing, and (2) denied him appointment of counsel. We conclude the trial court did not err in summarily denying defendant’s petition and affirm the judgment.

Two brothers, defendants Joseph Anthony Castro and Salvador “Alex” Castro, issued threats against Jesse Hernandez and his friend Jorge Rodriguez as the defendants drove by them on a Stockton street. The defendants then drove to Hernandez’s residence, where Alex attacked the residence and challenged them to come out. When Hernandez came out, he was attacked by first Alex and then by both defendants, who used golf clubs and/or a fishing rod. Rodriguez came out to help his friend, but Hernandez was fatally stabbed. Following a jury trial, both defendants were convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) with enhancements for personal use of a dangerous or deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced them each to state prison terms of 26 years to life.

In 2020, Charles Stone was charged with voluntary manslaughter for a 2009 killing committed for a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 192, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) Stone was 17 years old when the crime was committed. Stone waived his right to trial. He pleaded no contest to the homicide and admitted the gang enhancement. He was sentenced to the midterm of six years for the killing plus 10 years for the enhancement.

Defendant Manuel Antonio Gonzalez appeals from an order denying his request for expungement of a 1997 burglary conviction. Our independent review of the record has revealed no arguable appellate issues and we affirm.

In 2017, a jury found defendant Tyrone Tate (defendant) guilty of making criminal threats against the mother of his children (Pen. Code, § 422(a)), violating a domestic violence protective order with violence or threats of violence (§ 166(c)(4)), and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594(a)). The convictions arose from a series of events one afternoon and evening when defendant threatened to beat the mother of his children, punched through a window at the apartment where she and the children were living, and accosted her in the apartment—smacking a phone out of her hand when she said she was calling the police. The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison, five years of which were imposed pursuant to section 667(a)(1) for having sustained a prior serious felony conviction.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Nathan Ruben Montoya of two counts of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) It also found true the allegation that defendant personally used a handgun during the commission of the robberies. (§§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1); 12022.5, subd. (a); & 12022.53, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced defendant to 19 years, four months in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 315 that it could consider an eyewitness’s level of certainty in evaluating identification testimony. We affirm.

In December 2017, appellant Randall Ramirez was charged with three felony counts of conspiracy to commit a crime (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)) , three felony counts of bringing contraband into jail (§ 4573, subd. (a)), three felony counts of bringing an illegal substance into jail (§ 4573.5), and two misdemeanor counts of possession with intent to deliver a cell phone to an inmate (§ 4576, subd. (a)). The information alleged that the felony offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)), and further alleged that appellant suffered two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12) and two five-year prison priors (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).

After sustaining amended allegations of domestic violence and inappropriate physical discipline by Samar B., the juvenile court declared his two sons, 11-year-old Simon B. and seven-year-old Shoumen B., dependents of the juvenile court, removed the children from Samar’s care and custody and released them to their mother, Rael B., under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) with family maintenance services for Rael and family enhancement services including monitored visitation for Samar. At Rael’s request the court issued a restraining order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5 protecting her and the two children from Samar. On appeal Samar challenges only the inclusion of the children in the restraining order, arguing there was insufficient evidence he had harmed or would harm his sons. We affirm.

The opinion filed January 13, 2021 in the above-entitled matter is ordered MODIFIED as follows: On page 2 of the opinion, the fourth sentence of the last paragraph is modified to omit the word “repeatedly.”

Mother and Father contend the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court’s order removing their three children from Father’s custody. Neither parent proffers argument challenging the jurisdictional findings as to both parents or the dispositional order removing the children from Mother.
We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s removal order and affirm.