CA Unpub Decisions

In 2014, plaintiff California Public Records Research, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the fees charged by the County of Stanislaus (County) for copies of official records. The trial court denied the petition. We reversed and required County’s Board of Supervisors (Board) to make findings under Government Code section 27366, supported by substantial evidence, as to the fee “amount necessary to recover the direct and indirect costs of providing the copies” and to set the copying fees in accordance with those findings. (California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1460–1461 (Public Records–Stanislaus).)

On the eve of trial, appellant Manuel Arturo Gonzalez faced several charges related to drug and gun possession and resisting arrest. He also had a plea offer under which he would admit to negligent discharge of a firearm, resisting a peace officer, and possession of methamphetamine in return for dismissal of other serious charges and recommendations that Gonzalez enter a residential substance abuse treatment program or serve a maximum term of two years in prison. Gonzalez balked and instead asked the trial judge to allow him to replace his retained attorney with a new attorney. The trial judge sent the matter out to another judge for what he characterized as a Marsden hearing, which is the procedure when a criminal defendant seeks to replace appointed counsel, not retained counsel.

Law enforcement found 784 marijuana plants and 18 firearms on Carlos Alberto Pelayo’s property, and prosecutors tried him for felony cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358, unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code). A jury found him not guilty of cultivating marijuana but convicted him of the lesser-included misdemeanor offense of simple possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. (§ 11357, subd. (b)(2).) Pelayo challenges his conviction because the trial judge admitted evidence about the firearms found at his home. Law enforcement found two revolvers and two rifles in his bedroom and 14 assorted firearms stored in a locked shipping container in his yard. The trial judge admitted evidence (photographs and testimony) about all the weapons based on the prosecutor’s representation that they had all been found loaded, which he concluded tended to show Pelayo knew he needed to protect his marijuana crop.

Pierson and an accomplice burglarized a home one afternoon while one of the residents was in the house. The resident and two neighbors saw the two men fleeing and helped identify them after police found them hiding with the stolen property. A jury convicted Pierson of first degree burglary.
Pierson challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as one of the burglars or that he had access to the home or the stolen property.

Appointed counsel for defendant Chance Dean Tolen 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 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we will modify the judgment to correct sentencing errors and direct the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment. We affirm the judgment as modified.

Appointed counsel for defendant Christopher Andrew Trujillo 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 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

This is the second appeal filed by defendant Grant Brooks (Grant) after the trial court issued a wage garnishment order for a debt incurred by his then spouse (Mary Brooks, with many aliases, hereafter Mary). In the first appeal, we affirmed the garnishment order, upholding the trial court’s finding that a debt incurred by Grant’s attorney-spouse for office computer equipment was for the “necessaries of life” for that particular marriage within the meaning of Family Code section 914 because the spouse’s law practice generated community property income. (Direct Capital Corp. v. Brooks (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1168, 1170 (Direct Capital).) The garnishment order was affirmed without prejudice to a motion in the trial court to vacate or modify it based on the terms of a divorce judgment entered after the notice of appeal was filed. (Id. at pp. 1170, 1178.)

Benjamin Hernandez appeals from an order denying his motion to modify his sentence, imposed in 1998. We affirm, as Hernandez’s supplemental appellate brief does not present any valid ground for modifying his sentence.

K.L. (Mother) appeals orders by the juvenile court pertaining to her son, T.B., born in November 2005. Mother asserts the juvenile court abused its discretion by finding T.B. was subject to initial and continuing jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and further erred by ordering visitation to occur in a therapeutic setting. We reject these arguments, and affirm.

In the dependency proceedings below regarding A.M., daughter of appellant R.M. (Mother), the juvenile court terminated reunification services for Mother. Mother now challenges the court’s denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for modification, through which Mother sought reinstatement of reunification services or, in the alternative, return of A.M. to her care. We reverse the order to the extent it denies Mother’s request for further reunification services.

In August 2018, defendant and appellant Zachary Apollo Schuster was charged with bringing contraband (marijuana) into a jail facility (Pen. Code, § 4573, subd. (a); count 1) and lewd conduct (§ 647, subd. (a); count 2). It was further alleged defendant had suffered a 2014 strike prior (making terrorist threats) within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law.
Defendant agreed to plead no contest to count 1 in exchange for a dismissal of count 2 and a term of four years (two-year low term doubled due to the strike). Defendant signed a written advisement of rights form and admitted his strike prior. The court accepted defendant’s waiver of rights on the record. Counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The court imposed a four-year state prison term in accordance with the plea agreement.

Defendant and appellant Daryl Anthony Sconiers, Jr. (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered after he was resentenced upon the granting of his petition for vacatur and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. Defendant contends, and respondent agrees, that the trial court erred in replacing his first degree murder conviction with a second degree murder conviction, and then resentencing him on the second degree murder, rather than on the remaining counts. We agree that this was error, therefore we reverse and remand with directions.

Defendant Ursula Gomez is serving a 21-year prison term after pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter. She petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. (Unidentified section references are to the Penal Code.) Section 1170.95 allows persons convicted of felony murder, or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory, to petition for resentencing. The trial court summarily denied defendant’s petition without appointing counsel for defendant.
We affirm the trial court’s order. Courts of Appeal have thus far uniformly held only defendants convicted of murder are eligible for relief under the plain language of section 1170.95. We agree with those decisions. We also agree with decisions holding the right to counsel does not attach immediately upon the filing of a resentencing petition.

In 1997, defendant Miguel Angel Zapata entered a plea of no contest to one count of second degree murder. In 2019, he petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. He appeals the order of the trial court summarily denying his petition.
The record of conviction does not contain evidence demonstrating the factual basis for Zapata’s no contest plea. As a result, the People assert the trial court exceeded the scope of review under section 1170.95 by making factual findings about Zapata’s conviction without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We agree and reverse with instructions for the trial court to issue an order to show cause and conduct a hearing pursuant to section 1170.95, subdivision (d).