CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Richard Stanley Sandoval appeals from the postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel identified potential issues to assist us in our independent review. We provided Sandoval 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf; he did not do so.

Plaintiff Tiger Loans, Inc. appeals from an amended judgment including an award of attorney fees and costs against plaintiff and in favor of defendant Yan Hao. Plaintiff complains defendant was not entitled to fees and costs. But plaintiff’s appeal from the amended judgment is untimely because the amendment only added attorney fees and costs and the time for appeal of the original judgment expired. And even if we construe plaintiff’s appeal as having been taken from the underlying attorney fee order, it too is untimely. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiff Allied Building Products (Allied) sued a corporation and its president, defendant Tri Nguyen, and for breach of a written agreement that included a personal guarantee purportedly signed by Nguyen. There was no court reporter at the ensuing court trial, where Nguyen presented opinion testimony by a handwriting expert to assert his purported signature was a forgery. The trial court found against Nguyen and entered judgment for Allied. No statement of decision was requested.

A jury convicted appellant Robin Duane Boyer of involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (b); count I) for the shooting death of Brandon Pacheco. The jury found true that appellant personally inflicted the fatal injury and he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). He was also convicted of two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts II & III) stemming from the same incident, and involving the same victim. In these counts, the jury also found true firearm enhancements (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seven years.

Appellant brought this appeal to challenge a temporary custody and visitation order made by the trial court after a December 19, 2018 hearing. Temporary custody orders are not appealable. Appellant recognizes the appealability issue and requests this court to exercise its discretionary authority and treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. As explained below, we decline to exercise that authority.
We therefore dismiss the appeal.

Defendant Emanuel Machado Ramos was charged with two counts of committing lewd acts upon a minor under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a) [counts 1-2]) and four counts of committing lewd acts upon a minor 14 or 15 years of age who was at least 10 years younger than him (id., subd. (c)(1) [counts 3-6]). As to counts 1 and 2, the information alleged he was previously convicted of committing lewd acts upon a minor under 14 years of age. (§ 667.61, subds. (a), (d)(1).) Following trial, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the prior conviction. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of five years on counts 3 through 6 plus an aggregate indeterminate term of 50 years to life on counts 1 and 2.

Fifteen-year-old G.K. (daughter) reported that on one occasion her father, J.S. (father), laid on top of her, tried to kiss her on the mouth and grabbed her butt. The Fresno County Department of Social Services (Department) concluded the report was “substantiated” and submitted it to the California Department of Justice for inclusion in the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) (Pen. Code, § 11164 et seq.). Father, who represented himself throughout these proceedings, unsuccessfully sought relief by an administrative appeal and a petition for administrative mandamus in superior court.

Nathaniel Ochoa (defendant) participated in a home invasion robbery at a residence occupied by a woman and her baby. Believing there was a hidden box containing a large sum of money, the robbers ransacked the home and demanded the woman reveal its location. At one point, defendant picked up the baby and threatened to “take [it] away” if the woman did not disclose the information. After she continued to deny having such a box, defendant put down the baby and went on searching. The perpetrators left after finding approximately $2,000 inside of a diaper bag. The woman and her child were not physically harmed.

Appellant Kellee R. Patterson and respondent Steven Patterson separated in May 2005, and dissolution proceedings were initiated. The primary subject of the present appeal is the characterization of a residential property, and the validity of several agreements involving the property.
In 2014, the trial court invalidated a promissory note and a deed of trust to the property securing the note, along with a marital settlement agreement. In 2017, the trial court ruled the property was Steven’s separate property and that Steven was entitled to $75,000 in sanctions. Kellee challenges these rulings on appeal.

In Tuolumne County Superior Court case No. CRF48393 (case No. CRF48393), defendant Brian Thomas Reynolds pled guilty to theft and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted he was previously convicted of a qualifying “strike” offense under the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b) (i)).

Defendant and appellant, Donald Vincent Brooks, had a daughter with the victim, Jane Doe. After they separated, defendant voluntarily gave up his custody rights to their daughter. Defendant and Jane Doe agreed that defendant could visit his daughter, but only on agreed-upon terms. Defendant became increasingly angry at Jane Doe when she would not let him visit their daughter at his request, and began sending Jane Doe threatening text messages. Defendant also showed up unannounced at Jane Doe’s boyfriend’s workplace and at his daughter’s school when Jane Doe was picking her up, even though Jane Doe told him not to do so.

A.H. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petition and terminating parental rights as to his daughter L.H. (§ 366.26.) He contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying his section 388 motion because he had shown a sufficient change of circumstances and the request was in L.H.’s best interest. He also claims the juvenile court erred in freeing L.H. for adoption because her bond with him outweighed the benefits of adoption. We affirm the orders.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.
Laura Schaefer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Richard Lloyd Pruett (Pruett) appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandate, in which he sought to set aside the decision of the Dental Board of California (Board) revoking his dental license. On appeal, Pruett argues: (1) the trial court erred in proceeding with the hearing on the petition over his objection that the Board failed to provide him with a service copy of the lodged administrative record; and (2) insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that he committed acts of sexual abuse or misconduct against two female patients. Finding no error, we affirm.