CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Byford Peter Whittingham (plaintiff), a captain in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), sued defendant and respondent the City of Los Angeles (City) claiming he had not been promoted due to retaliation for his participation in an internal affairs investigation and for votes he cast not to terminate the employment of LAPD officers in several LAPD Board of Rights proceedings—votes that were purportedly contrary to the wishes of then-LAPD Chief of Police Charles Beck. The jury found for the City on both plaintiff’s causes of action, one for workplace retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.) (FEHA) and the other for whistleblower retaliation (Lab. Code, § 1102.5).

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
On August 9, 2017, the Cloverdale Police Department conducted a probation search of the residence of defendant Richard Clancy Burns. Police located a .22 caliber rifle and shot gun shells. Eventually, police found defendant hiding in a closet.
On February 5, 2018, in case No. SCR707599 (hereafter SCR 599), defendant entered a plea of no contest to unlawful possession of firearm by a felon in exchange for no county jail at the outset and release from custody pending sentencing with a Cruz waiver. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1).) As a condition of his release, defendant was required to obey all laws.

In these consolidated appeals, M.R. (Mother) and P.C. (Father) (collectively, Parents) challenge the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to K.R. (Minor), an Indian child pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.). They challenge the juvenile court’s findings that (1) the Marin County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and (2) Parents’ continued custody is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to Minor. We affirm.

Defendant Matthew Caleb Scott Snider Friedland appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to one count of first degree residential burglary armed with a firearm. Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the judgment.

In 2014, appellant Heather Martindale (appellant) obtained a three-year domestic violence prevention restraining order against the father of her daughter, respondent Raymond Ochoa (respondent). Before the order was set to expire, appellant sought permanent renewal of the order. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the request, finding appellant had not shown “ ‘reasonable apprehension’ of future abuse.” (Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1290 (Ritchie).) Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion. We affirm the denial of renewal of the restraining order.

Jose Guadalupe Escareno appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for attempted murder and assault. He raises numerous claims, including (but not limited to) instructional error, evidentiary error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing error. We remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike firearm enhancements pursuant to recent legislation, and otherwise affirm.

Joseph Daniel Tabron, Joseph Manuel Castro, and Joseph Robert Silva appeal their convictions for the felony murder of Noe Garcia and Trisha Forde that occurred in the course of a home-invasion robbery and kidnapping. Appellants allege the trial court improperly denied their Batson/Wheeler motion for dismissal of two African-American jurors. They argue the trial court should have suppressed Silva’s confession as both violating Miranda and because it was not voluntary. Appellants further argue the trial court failed to provide jury instructions on defense theories and improperly denied their motion for acquittal at the close of the prosecution’s case. Silva alleges the court should have provided an instruction on voluntary intoxication for him. Castro argues the court improperly admitted his prior conviction for theft to show intent.

In this case, following a jury trial, defendant Raul Osuna Guerrero was convicted of forgery (Pen. Code, § 476), identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1)), concealing or withholding stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)). The trial court found a “strike” allegation to be true (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), which made defendant eligible for sentencing under the Three Strikes law.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Amanda E. Casillas and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2011, the Fullerton City Council passed four resolutions and two ordinances approving a development project for land then zoned for oil and gas production. The four resolutions were (1) approval of a new EIR for the development project; (2) amendments to the city’s general plan providing for development of the area; (3) a new specific plan for the area filling in the details of the development; and (4) and a set of subdivision maps reflecting the project. One of the two ordinances (5) changed the zoning from oil and gas to “specific plan district,” making the area subject to the new specific plan. The other ordinance (6) gave authority to the mayor to sign a complex development agreement hammered out between the city and the owner of the land.

Appellant Abel R. (father), appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders as to his now 12- and nine-year old daughters, Mary S. and Clare S., respectively. He contends the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings his daughters suffered or were at a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a) are not supported by substantial evidence and the court’s removal orders under section 361, subdivision (a)(1) are inconsistent with its orders returning the girls to his custody under family maintenance services. We affirm the court’s jurisdictional findings but reverse the court’s removal orders and remand with directions to conduct a new dispositional hearing.

Appellant Acie Cole, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

A jury convicted appellant Rodney James Rusco of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)/count 1) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)/count 2) and it found true a great bodily injury enhancement in count 1 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). In a separate proceeding, the court found true seven prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On appeal, Rusco contends: (1) the court erred in imposing three prior prison term enhancements whose underlying felony convictions had been redesignated misdemeanors; and (2) the trial court may not impose prior prison term enhancements based on convictions that occurred prior to 2015 because those convictions were “washed out.”
We find merit to Rusco’s contentions, modify the judgment accordingly, and affirm as modified.

Rickie Silguero Coronado was committed to the custody of the California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for an indeterminate term after a jury found he was a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA or the Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq. ). On appeal, he argues the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting expert witnesses to testify to case-specific facts that constitute inadmissible hearsay under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). Coronado also challenges testimony regarding the effect of his actions on his victims and the admission of certain documents and portions of documents. Finally, in supplemental briefing and a related request for judicial notice, he states that the parole term on his underlying conviction was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 3000, subdivision (a)(4) as a result of his adjudication as a sexually violent predator, and contends that this stay violates his constitutional righ