CA Unpub Decisions

V.A. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her two minor daughters, L.A. and K.V. (the children). According to mother, she presented sufficient evidence to establish the beneficial relationship exception to termination of her parental rights.
Whether reviewed under the substantial evidence or the abuse of discretion standard, the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the benefit to the children from adoption outweighed any detriment to them from terminating their parental relationship with mother. We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights.

Mother S.M.’s two teenaged children were declared dependent due to mother’s unresolved substance abuse. Mother does not question the jurisdictional finding, but appeals the court’s disposition order, which removed the children from her custody and placed them with their father. We conclude the removal order was supported by the evidence and affirm.

Defendant Richard Rangel appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of second degree robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and found allegations in support of firearm and gang enhancements true. Rangel contends that the trial court improperly denied his request to represent himself at trial, committed misconduct by questioning prosecution witnesses, and abused its discretion by imposing the maximum allowable sentence. Rangel also filed a supplemental brief seeking remand for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 1393), which as of January 1, 2019, will grant trial courts the discretion to strike the five-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) for a prior conviction.

Lavance McNair appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated no contest plea to aggravated assault. We affirm.

In a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, minor R.S. was alleged to have committed forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and forcible oral copulationof Jeanette A. The court heard testimony from several witnesses: Jeanette, the deputy sheriff who found her immediately after the incident (Deputy Marinelli) and other deputies who participated in detaining R.S. and bringing him to Jeanette for a field show-up; forensic nurses who examined Jeanette and R.S. within hours after the incident; several people who lived across the street from the location of the incident; a friend of R.S.; and R.S. himself. The juvenile court concluded that the case came down to the testimony of Jeanette, R.S., and, to some extent, Deputy Marinelli. The court found Jeanette (who testified that the sexual encounter was forcible and not consensual) to be credible, and R.S.

This case concerns a contract partially negotiated in California for the delivery of pipe extrusion equipment to China. The contract for this equipment was between a Chinese corporation (the plaintiff here) and a U.S. corporation (a non-party). When the plaintiff received defective equipment, it sued not the U.S. corporation with which it had contracted, but that corporation’s German sister corporation and a holding company over them both. The trial court granted motions to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction over both defendants. Plaintiff appeals and we now affirm.

A.R. (father) appeals from the jurisdictional finding that his one-year-old daughter was at risk of suffering serious physical harm inflicted non-accidently by him. Although there was significant testimony of domestic violence between the parents, father argues that the juvenile court’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence because daughter was merely a bystander. We affirm.

The jury found defendants and appellants Paulo Olea Corrales and Ramiro Gutierrez guilty of three counts of shooting from a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 26100, subd. (c) [counts 7–9]), and found true as to all three counts the allegations that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a handgun during the commission of the crimes within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (c)(1) and (e)(1), a principal personally used a handgun during the commission of the crimes within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b)(1) and (e)(1), and that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). Gutierrez was additionally found guilty of two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a) [counts 4 & 6]) and one count of criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a) [count 5]).

Defendant Martin Anthony Gonzalez, a member of Pomona’s Olive Street gang, shot victim Vanessa A. in the arm and chest when she refused to leave an alley within Olive Street’s territory. A jury convicted defendant of the premediated attempted murder of Vanessa and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. It also found true enhancement allegations that defendant committed both crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang and caused great bodily injury during the attempted murder by personally and intentionally discharging a firearm. The court sentenced defendant to a third-strike sentence totaling 71 years to life in prison.

Twenty-year-old Matthew Barker died on June 10, 2008, of an overdose of fentanyl, a potent prescription drug. Barker’s mother, plaintiff Marilyn M. Smith, sued Cari Garza, Barker’s former psychiatric nurse with whom plaintiff and Barker had been friendly, alleging wrongful death and dependent adult abuse. A jury found in favor of defendant on the latter claim, but concluded defendant, plaintiff, and Barker were all negligent and equally at fault for Barker’s accidental death; plaintiff was awarded damages. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Both sides appeal.

Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (the department) and minor’s counsel appeal the juvenile court’s order dismissing the dependency petition for nine-year-old A.S, contending that the juvenile court erred as a matter of law when it failed to make the required findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 390 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.695, abused its discretion by refusing to allow the department to present testimony from certain witnesses, and failed to consider its options under rule 5.616 concerning out-of-state placement before dismissing the dependency petition.

After defendant Andrew Chiu failed to comply with several discovery orders, the trial court issued terminating sanctions and entered a default judgment against him. The court held a prove-up hearing and entered judgment for plaintiff Joanna Qi Chen (plaintiff), which included punitive damages. Several months later, Chiu moved to set aside the discovery orders and the order issuing terminating sanctions, and to vacate the default and default judgment. The court denied the motion.
We affirm.

Defendant Jose Velasquez was convicted of numerous crimes arising out of a sexual assault in Concord, committed when he was a minor. A few months before the Concord crimes, he had sexually assaulted a woman in Washington. He was subsequently convicted of the Washington crimes, and while he was serving his sentence in that state, a DNA test connected him to the sexual assault in Concord. The Contra Costa District Attorney filed a complaint against defendant while he was incarcerated in Washington, but he was not arrested and arraigned on the California charges until about nine years later, after he was released in Washington.

Eva M. Ruiz Gomez (Mother) appeals a judgment of the superior court denying her petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, October 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670 (the Convention) to require the return of her daughter, Bianca, to Mexico. She contends that the trial court erred in finding the United States to be Bianca’s country of habitual residence. As the evidence in the record reveals no clear error in the trial court’s factual findings and the trial court correctly applied the Convention to those facts, we affirm the judgment.