CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Corey Shannon Bratcher of assault, battery causing serious bodily injury, and corporal injury upon a person with whom he had a dating relationship. Defendant admitted a prior prison term enhancement allegation and the trial court sentenced him to five years in state prison.
Defendant now contends (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the prior prison term enhancement, and (2) the trial court should have stayed the sentence for assault pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Although we find no merit to defendant’s first contention, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentence for the assault conviction and affirm the judgment as modified.

Defendant Maurice Higgs appeals his convictions for multiple sex offenses committed against his stepdaughter. He raises instructional and sentencing error; we direct correction of the abstract of judgment and affirm the judgment. After allowing supplemental briefing, we also order a limited remand as described post.

Following a jury trial, defendant James Joseph Pulizzano was convicted of attempted murder (Pen. Code, § 664/187—count II), attempted voluntary manslaughter (§ 664/192, subd. (a)—count I), felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)—count III), two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)—counts IV & V), and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)—count VI), with enhancements for personal use of a firearm as to the attempted voluntary manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and criminal threats counts (§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d)) and personally and intentionally discharging a firearm as to the attempted murder count (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 29 years four months in state prison.

J.C. (mother) appeals from a July 6, 2018 order summarily denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to change court orders. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
The factual and procedural history of this case are discussed in an earlier opinion, J.C. v. Superior Court (Jun. 25, 2018, B287276 [nonpub. opn.].) In that opinion, we denied mother’s petition seeking extraordinary writ review of the dependency court’s order setting a section 366.26 hearing, after the court terminated mother’s reunification services. A few weeks later, mother filed her section 388 petition with the trial court, seeking an order returning her daughter, N.D. (minor) to her custody. The dependency court denied her petition without a hearing, and mother filed the current appeal.

Mother asked her physician to help her stop using cocaine. Based on Mother’s admitted drug abuse, allegedly in front of her 13-year-old daughter, Mother’s physician referred the family to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). The primary question presented is whether the juvenile court correctly asserted jurisdiction over mother and daughter based on mother’s admitted use of cocaine and a reckless driving conviction mother sustained shortly before the dependency proceedings commenced; the answer is yes. We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

In this juvenile dependency case, defendant and appellant S.B. (father) challenges both the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings declaring his three-year-old son, C.B., a dependent of the court, as well as the court’s dispositional order removing C.B. from father’s custody and care. In particular, father argues the juvenile court erred in (1) finding father sexually abused C.B.’s six-year-old half sister, C.N., (2) asserting jurisdiction over C.B. based on the alleged abuse of C.N., and (3) finding circumstances existed justifying the removal of C.B. As discussed below, we disagree with father’s arguments on appeal and affirm.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, on August 15, 2017, defendant Michael L. Tompkins pleaded no contest to embezzlement of public monies in violation of Penal Code sections 504 and 514. As part of his plea, defendant agreed to pay $1,451,061 in restitution to the City of Los Angeles. The parties agreed that the prosecutor would dismiss defendant’s strike offense for voluntary manslaughter and recommend a three-year prison term. The trial court accepted defendant’s no contest plea. On December 6, 2017, the trial judge sentenced defendant to the agreed upon three-year term in state prison, awarded 424 days of presentence custody credit, and imposed certain fines and restitution to the City of Los Angeles in the amount of $1,451,061.

Defendant and appellant Travis Rene Bacchus appeals from his conviction by jury of possession of metal knuckles and making criminal threats. The court also found true that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for a violent or serious felony within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. Defendant was sentenced to a state prison term of seven years eight months. Defendant raises two claims of instructional error, and also contends reversal is mandated because his conviction for possession of metal knuckles is not supported by substantial evidence. In supplemental briefing, defendant argues remand for resentencing is warranted in light of the passage of Senate Bill No. 1393 during the pendency of this appeal which amended Penal Code sections 667 and 1385.

Julia Andrea Grau Gomez obtained a civil harassment restraining order (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6) against her neighbor, Paul Bukowski. Bukowski appeals, contending the evidence was insufficient to establish harassment. Concluding that substantial evidence supports the court’s implied findings, we affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Geraldine Wood appeals from a judgment following an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Laura Farwell in this personal injury action. On appeal, Wood contends her suit is not barred by the two year statute of limitations. We conclude the record and the briefs are inadequate for appellate review. We affirm.

Ana G. (Mother) is the mother of Jeremiah G., a 12-year-old dependent of the juvenile court. Mother filed a petition seeking review by extraordinary writ of an order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. We deny Mother’s petition and her request for a stay of the section 366.26 hearing.

In this consolidated matter, appellants and petitioners I.Z. (Mother) and Father, parents of five-year-old P.S. and almost one-year-old A.V. appeal in case No. A155035 from the juvenile court’s August 7, 2018 order suspending their visitation with both P.S. and A.V. They also seek review by extraordinary writ in case No. A155536, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, of the juvenile court’s order terminating their visitation with A.V., after the court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The parents contend the court’s August 7, 2018 order suspending their visitation with P.S. and A.V. and its October 10, 2018 order terminating visitation with A.V. were not supported by substantial evidence that visitation was detrimental to the children.

After a jury trial, appellant Collin White was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and related offenses arising out of the December 2015 assault on Stuart Jackson that resulted in Jackson’s death at a San Francisco bus stop. White raises a single issue on appeal, whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to present evidence of a prior uncharged assault for the purpose of identifying White as the perpetrator of the crimes under review. Seeing no abuse of discretion in this evidentiary ruling, we affirm.

This criminal prosecution is the result of multiple charges brought against two co-defendants—Jabrie Bennett and Andre Smith (collectively, appellants)—in connection with a January 2013 altercation between two groups of teenagers outside of the Bayfair BART station in San Leandro, which escalated to the point where shots were fired and Kenneth Seets, an innocent bystander, was killed. Bennett was additionally prosecuted for the attempted murder of Donnell Jordan, based on an unrelated incident that occurred two days prior to the BART shooting and involved the same gun. Both Bennett and Smith raise numerous claims of error on appeal. Together, they assert that the prosecutor improperly used three of his peremptory challenges to excuse potential jurors because they were Black, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler), overruled in part by Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 165.