CA Unpub Decisions

In February 2015, defendant Samantha Green’s newborn son was found dead near a slough in the Knights Landing area of Yolo County on the Sacramento River. After a jury trial, she was found guilty of second degree implied malice murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 188.) The trial court sentenced her to 15 years to life in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the judgment must be reversed because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to: (1) request the trial court instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 3428 (“Mental Impairment: Defense to Specific Intent or Mental State”); (2) argue that evidence of her mental disorder (amphetamine-induced psychotic disorder) could be considered in determining whether she had the requisite mental state to be convicted of second degree implied malice murder; and (3) timely object to expert testimony opining on her credibility. We will affirm the judgment.

Codefendants Charles Goerlich and Marcus Roy were tried together before two juries, and each found guilty of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of forcible false imprisonment. The juries found true allegations that Goerlich and Roy personally used firearms within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a).
Goerlich and Roy appeal, arguing the trial court should have instructed their juries, sua sponte, on the defense of felony citizen’s arrest. (§ 837) Goerlich separately argues the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by allowing an uncooperative witness to refuse to respond to certain questions on cross-examination. Roy separately argues the trial court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction.
We remand on the firearm enhancements, but otherwise affirm the judgments.

Without the benefit of Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 522 (Ayala) and Jones v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 986 (Jones), and without elucidating its reasons, the trial court denied Raley’s maintenance technicians’ motion for class certification of their wage and hour claims. The technicians allege Raley’s maintains uniform policies and/or practices denying them travel time while they are under Raley’s control, compensation for working during meal time, and reimbursement for personal tools they are required to purchase and replace. These uniform policies and practices, according to the technicians, present common issues of fact and law and their legality are particularly well suited to a class action. In denying class certification, the trial court made the conclusory finding the plaintiffs failed to establish that a well-defined community of interest exists and that the common issues of fact and law predominate.

On December 6, 2018, the juvenile court set a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to consider termination of parental rights and select a permanent plan for three-year-old T.J. and his one-year-old sister A.L. The court also terminated reunification services to the children’s parents, Justin J. and Kayla L. Justin seeks review by extraordinary writ of the December 2018 order, contending the juvenile court erred by terminating his reunification services with T.J. We deny Justin’s petition on the merits.

Defendant Deonte Holoman appeals from a judgment entered on his plea of no contest. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Holoman was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude that because he waived his right to appeal under the plea agreement and did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, the appeal must be dismissed.

Patrick Shane Schuetz pleaded no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)), in exchange for which special allegations of two prior strike convictions were dismissed. The court placed Schuetz on three years of probation. A year later, based on repeated violations of probation conditions, the court terminated Schuetz’s probation and imposed a sentence of two years in prison with a credit of 385 days. Schuetz appeals. We affirm.

This appeal arises from dependency proceedings involving siblings Z.M., a girl born in October 2015, and G.V., a girl born in September 2016. In August 2018, at a hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the girls’ mother, T.P. (Mother), and their presumed father, C.M. (Father), and selected adoption as the permanent plan for both girls.
On appeal, Mother and Father contend the San Francisco Human Services Agency (the Agency) did not comply with the notice, inquiry and other requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act The parents raise only the ICWA issue; neither parent raises any appellate arguments as to the merits of the juvenile court’s decision terminating parental rights. The Agency concedes that its efforts under ICWA were not sufficient and that the case should be remanded to ensure compliance with ICWA. We agree and will conditionally reverse the orders terminating parental rights.

Ruben Cuadra appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after he entered a plea of no contest to multiple counts. He contends the court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his no contest plea should be reversed because (1) the court should have allowed expert witness testimony to show his plea was not knowing and voluntary; and (2) his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to ask for a continuance of the trial so Cuadra could further consider the plea offer. We will affirm the judgment.

In these consolidated appeals, Dr. Derrick Norbert Morris appeals judgments entered in favor of multiple defendants based, in part, on orders sustaining demurrers without leave to amend and, in part, on his failure to timely file a fourth amended complaint after demurrers to other causes of action in his third amended complaint were sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff has appeared throughout in propria persona. The lengthy record reflects numerous attempts by the trial court to provide clarifying information to plaintiff as to defects that needed to be corrected in order to state a viable cause of action. Despite the severity of the injuries plaintiff alleges were caused by at least some of the defendants, the court ultimately correctly rejected some of his claims on the merits and dismissed the entire action when he failed to file a further amended complaint within the time provided after sustaining demurrers to his third amended complaint.

More than 30 years ago, defendant was convicted of murder with a special circumstances allegation and sentenced to a term of life in prison without possibility of parole (LWOP). In March 2016, the trial court denied a petition filed by defendant that sought resentencing on the ground that the imposition of the LWOP sentence, without individual consideration of his age-related characteristics, violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. We find no error in the denial of defendant’s petition because defendant was 19 years old when he committed his crime.

Mother M.M. appeals several orders entered by the juvenile court in a dependency proceeding. Her court appointed counsel on appeal filed a letter brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.) stating the facts and procedural history, but failing to raise any arguable issues on appeal. This court granted Mother’s request to file a supplemental brief. Because Mother fails to raise any arguable issues in her supplemental brief, we will dismiss the appeals.

A jury convicted Danny Lee Andrews of second degree robbery and attempted second degree robbery and the trial court found true he suffered two prior serious felony convictions, including a federal bank robbery conviction (the federal conviction). The trial court sentenced Andrews to prison for 60 years to life, which consisted of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life for the offenses and two consecutive terms of five years for the prior serious felony convictions. In a nonpublished opinion People v. Andrews (May 26, 2016, G051067) (Andrews), we concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish the federal conviction qualified as a serious felony and strike. We reversed and remanded to allow the prosecution to retry the “strike allegations” if it chose to do so. On remand, the prosecution retried the federal conviction, with Andrews in absentia. The trial court imposed sentence.

Defendant Salvador Barragan appeals from a 25-years-to-life sentence following his conviction for the first-degree murder of Victorino Cruz. He contends his conviction should be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He further contends the court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on the permissible inferences that can be drawn from his possession of the victim’s personal property. As discussed below, defendant has not demonstrated that his trial counsel was ineffective. In addition, although the court erred in giving the challenged instruction, the error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Appellant Antonio Barrera Garcia, Jr., pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)/count 1), driving with a blood- alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153,
subd. (b)/count 2), and driving while his driving privilege was suspended (Veh. Code,
§ 14601.1, subd. (a)/count 3), a misdemeanor. Garcia also admitted a great bodily injury enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) in counts 1 and 2 and allegations in those counts that his blood-alcohol content was 0.15 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23578).