CA Unpub Decisions

This writ matter arises from dependency proceedings involving T.N., a boy born in 2016. When T.N. was a newborn, the Lake County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a petition on behalf of the boy under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and removed him from the custody of his mother. He was placed with petitioners H.R-D. and E.R-D., who were subsequently granted de facto parent status. The following year, after parental rights were terminated, a permanent plan of adoption was ordered. T.N. was placed with his maternal grandmother, who resides in Oregon. Petitioners did not contest this placement. The placement was unsuccessful, however, and T.N. was returned to Lake County. Petitioners sought to have the boy returned to their home; however, the Department placed the child with a different prospective adoptive family.

Appellant, G.O., appeals from a March 13, 2018 order denying his request to seal his juvenile records. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel advised G.O. of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the Wende brief and he has filed no such brief.
As assigned counsel was apparently unaware when she filed her Wende brief on October 5, 2018, this appeal became moot on June 19, 2018, when the trial court ordered G.O.’s juvenile record sealed.

Mother, I.T., challenges the juvenile court’s denial of her petition that asserted changed circumstances and sought modification of a court order setting a hearing to terminate her parental rights. She also appeals the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights with a finding her children are adoptable. This is the rare case where the juvenile court erred in failing to recognize that Mother’s relationship with her children outweighed the benefit to the children that would accrue from termination of parental rights and a plan of adoption. Accordingly, we conclude the order terminating Mother’s parental rights must be reversed and the case must be remanded for the juvenile court to consider an appropriate long-term plan.

A jury convicted Darrell Ellis Mooring, Jr. (Darrell) of five counts of possessing controlled substances for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351)) and one count of possessing a designated controlled substance for sale (§ 11375, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Darrell to 10 years in state prison, using count one (possession of dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin, § 11351) as the principal term. Darrell appealed. We reversed the conviction for count one and remanded for resentencing. In all other respects, we affirmed. (People v. Mooring (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 928, 932.)

In this appeal, appellant A.J. challenges the juvenile court’s denial of his request in his Proposition 47 petition to expunge his DNA profile from the state’s databank and to destroy his DNA sample. A.J. contends that Penal Code section 1170.18 compels the expungement and subsequent destruction of his DNA sample.
Based on the recent Supreme Court decision in In re C.B. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 118, we affirm the juvenile court’s ruling denying A.J.’s request for expungement of his DNA profile and destruction of his DNA sample.

Ramon Mejia Rubio appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of committing a lewd act with a child under the age of 14 and found that the act constituted substantial sexual conduct. (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a); 1203.066, subd. (a)(8).) He contends (1) the prosecutor impermissibly appealed to the jury’s sympathy in closing argument; (2) the court erred in instructing the jury on the charged crimes; (3) the court erred in instructing the jury regarding substantial sexual conduct; and (4) the jury’s finding of substantial sexual conduct was not supported by substantial evidence. We will affirm.

Terry Furry sued his former employers East Bay Express and East Bay Publishing LLC (collectively East Bay) for, among other things, unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest break compensation, and statutory penalties for inaccurate wage statements. Although the trial court found that East Bay failed to keep accurate records of Furry’s work hours, it concluded that Furry was not entitled to any relief because his testimony was too uncertain to support a just and reasonable inference that he performed work for which he was not paid. The trial court also found that Furry was provided with uninterrupted meal and rest breaks as required by law.

Albert Trejo was convicted following a jury trial of one count of first degree murder and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he contends (1) there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support his conviction of first degree murder; (2) a police officer’s testimony regarding the location of appellant’s cell phone at certain relevant times should have been excluded both because the method used to analyze location was unreliable and inadmissible, and because the officer was not qualified to make such a determination; (3) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence taken from his cell phone without a warrant; and (4) the case should be remanded to give the court the opportunity to exercise its new discretion to strike a 25-year firearm enhancement.

Appellant was driving while under the influence of alcohol when he was involved in a fatal car crash. A grand jury returned an indictment charging appellant with the following ten offenses: two counts of second degree murder (Penal Code, § 187, subd. (a)) ; two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (a)); driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code § 23153, subd. (a)); driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher causing injury (Veh. Code § 23153, subd. (b)); two counts of child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a)); driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)); and providing false information to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). The indictment also alleged multiple sentence enhancement allegations for causing bodily injury and/or death while driving under the influence (§ 12022.7, subd. (a); Veh. Code, § 23558).

Defendant Obadiah Dartagnan Lomalynda appeals his conviction at a court trial of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664), for which he was sentenced to six years four months imprisonment. The court also found numerous enhancements to be true. This court initially remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider several sentencing issues, all of which were resolved on remand. There remains to be considered only defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his request to represent himself at his preliminary hearing and, if the conviction is affirmed, his request for a further remand for the trial court to determine whether to strike a five-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) authorized by a recently enacted amendment to Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (b). We shall affirm defendant’s conviction and remand so that the trial court may consider whether to strike this enhancement.

A jury convicted Joseph Lopez, Jr. of second degree murder, unlawful possession of a semi-automatic firearm, and participation in a criminal street gang. The jury found the firearm enhancements true in connection the with the second degree murder count. The trial court sentenced Lopez to a total term of 43 years, eight months to life in prison. On appeal, Lopez claimed reversal was required due to numerous evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, and instructional error. He also argued there was insufficient evidence to sustain the criminal street gang charge.

Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers) appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate a bail bond and from the subsequent judgment. Bankers contends that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the bond by failing to declare a forfeiture pursuant to Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (a)(1) when defendant Luis Banuelos failed to appear at two hearings. Bankers also argues that the bond was exonerated by operation of law when the trial court imposed supervised release conditions upon Banuelos at the conclusion of his preliminary hearing without first exonerating the bail bond.

Defendant Ofelia Rodriguez Oropeza was convicted by a jury of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with a firearm enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). She was sentenced to a total term of four years in prison. On appeal, she argues (1) the trial court erred when it instructed the jury to “continue” their deliberations and “fill . . . in” the alternate juror following the juror’s substitution, (2) the trial court erroneously permitted the People to introduce testimonial hearsay evidence from a gang expert, and (3) the trial court committed instructional error when it failed to instruct the jury that her duress defense negated her guilt under a conspiracy theory of liability. We reject defendant’s claims and affirm the judgment.

In 2016, Stephen Pelton and Rebecca Mendez were granted civil harassment restraining orders against appellant Christy Wilson. Wilson appeals the court’s orders, arguing that they are not supported by substantial evidence, there is an inadequate record of the trial court proceedings, the orders improperly restrict her constitutional rights to travel and association, and she was denied her due process rights because there was not a court reporter present for the proceedings. We find that there is substantial evidence to support the orders, but we reverse and remand the matters for the trial court to clarify the orders in accord with constitutional principles.