CA Unpub Decisions

In September 2009, Pardew pled guilty to one count of resisting an executive officer and two counts of threatening a state official or judge. He also admitted one prison prior and two strike priors. The court sentenced him to 32 months in prison. On December 2, 2011, Pardew was admitted to Atascadero State Hospital as an MDO pursuant to section 2962. Since then, Pardew’s commitment has been extended seven times. He submitted to the first commitment extension without a trial. The second, third, fourth, and fifth extensions were by jury trial. Pardew waived his right to a jury trial for the sixth and seventh extension proceedings.
Pardew’s most recent commitment was set to expire on December 2, 2021. The People again petitioned for continued involuntary treatment of Pardew as an MDO. On March 1, 2022, Pardew personally moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that his right to a speedy trial had been violated.

On October 26, 2021, the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the (then) two-year-old minor alleging the minor was at substantial risk of harm due to mother’s untreated substance abuse; he was detained and placed in foster care.
At the time of the minor’s detention, father was incarcerated. He reported to the Department that he had been incarcerated for “ ‘around four months.’ ”
On December 2, 2021, the Department filed its jurisdiction/disposition report. As relevant here, the report set forth father’s criminal record, which extended from 1982 and included a 1983 conviction for sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4), as well as 10 convictions for failing to register as a sex offender. The report noted the Department had requested but not yet obtained a certified record for the 1983 conviction. The Department had tried to locate father on the Megan’s Law sex offender registry but could not.

In July 2021, police saw defendant driving his car at about 85 miles per hour and pulled him over. A methamphetamine pipe was in plain view, and defendant indicated there were drugs in the car. Police searched the car and found 0.98 pounds of methamphetamine, $1,480 in cash in a wallet, and a loaded .22-caliber revolver. Police also found a baggie containing 0.34 pounds of methamphetamine and three unused baggies.
Following testimony from the officer and defendant and review of a dashcam video of the incident, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of the officer’s search. The trial court based its decision on the automobile exception because the officer testified he saw the methamphetamine pipe, and the video showed the officer looking at the area where he said he saw the pipe.

On January 28, 2014, the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the seven-year-old minor, alleging the minor came within the provision of section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (g) (no provision for support). The petition alleged that mother hit the minor on the head (causing injury), was arrested and charged with felony child endangerment, and failed to arrange for care and custody of the minor during her incarceration. On January 29, 2014, the juvenile court ordered the minor detained and ordered supervised visitation for mother upon her release from incarceration. On March 14, 2014, the Department filed an amended petition in the juvenile court adding allegations that mother and father engaged in domestic violence and that father had a substance abuse problem.

Defendant pled guilty to a violation of section 211 and admitted a prior strike. The parties stipulated that the factual basis for the plea was stated in the probation report. The details of the crime are not relevant to this appeal. In brief, the victim told police he had an all-night party on the lawn in front of his house with defendant and others, and on the morning of June 20, 2020, defendant and another man assaulted the victim, took his keys, and stole two firearms from his house. Defendant was 22 years old at the time of the offense.
On July 29, 2021, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. The court found that the circumstances in aggravation outweighed the circumstances in mitigation -- indeed, the court found no mitigating factors -- and imposed the upper term. The court noted the following specific reasons for its choice of the upper term: “The crime involved great violence and bodily harm.

In February 2013, defendant was sentenced to eight years eight months in prison for robbery and using pepper spray as a weapon (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 22810, subd. (g)(1)). In March 2021, she was released from state prison on a two-year term of parole. As a section 290 registrant for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in 2007 and 2005 (§ 261.5, subd. (c)) and committing a lewd and lascivious act, at age 13, against her younger sister (§ 288, subd. (a)), her conditions of parole included Special Condition 31 (condition 31): “You shall not view, possess, or have access to any sexually oriented or sexually stimulating objects, articles, magazines and/or devices, or pornographic material in any format, including electronic communication devices (e.g., movies, photographs, drawings, literature, websites, texts, etc.).”
In June 2021, defendant’s parole officer filed a revocation petition alleging defendant violated condition 31.

Shortly before 1:00 a.m. on February 8, 2021, Sheriff’s Deputy Matthew Byers observed a blue Saab with a broken headlight and an expired registration sticker driving on Interstate 80. As Deputy Byers followed the vehicle, the Saab abruptly moved across multiple lanes, traveling from the fast lane and pulling to a stop on the right shoulder. Deputy Byers activated his emergency lights and pulled in behind the Saab. He observed defendant get out of the car, walk to the passenger side of the Saab, open the door, and hand something to the passenger before walking to the back of the Saab. Deputy Byers approached defendant with his gun unholstered, pointed to the ground. He could see that defendant had a folding construction style knife in his right front pants pocket. Defendant showed signs of being under the influence of a stimulant, such as methamphetamine.

On January 12, 2021, Citrus Heights filed in the Sacramento Superior Court a petition for an order to abate a public nuisance at defendant’s residence and for the appointment of a receiver pursuant to subdivision (c) of Health and Safety Code section 17980.7. According to the petition, City of Citrus Heights Code Enforcement (Code Enforcement) had received complaints dating to 2014 from defendant’s neighbors about his property. The nature of the complaints included “hoarding behavior by [defendant], specifically the large accumulation of trash and debris in plain view of the public that has raised health and safety concerns from members of the community.”
Almost a year earlier, on January 14, 2020, after receiving complaints from neighbors about the accumulation of trash and debris in plain view of the public at defendant’s residence, Code Enforcement Officer Ken Aiello performed an inspection of the exterior of the property.

Resolution of the issues in this case requires consideration of an SVP detainee’s due process right to a timely trial. Between 2008 and 2020, California courts published a number of cases delineating that due process right. Understanding the framework of those cases, and their chronology, is helpful in understanding the factual background and legal analysis of this case; thus, we set forth that history first.
“Because civil commitment involves a significant deprivation of liberty, a defendant in an SVP proceeding is entitled to due process protections. (Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) 504 U.S. 71, 80.)” (People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 209.) In SVP proceedings, after a finding of probable cause on the commitment petition, the alleged SVP is detained pending trial.

Defendant Frank Diaz had his stepdaughter A. masturbate him on multiple occasions, beginning when A. was eight or nine years old and continuing until she reported it when she was 13 years old. As a result, defendant was convicted of two counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) (counts one and two), and four counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 by either duress (counts three, four, and five) or force (count six) (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)) and sentenced to a 40-year state prison term.
Defendant contends on appeal: (1) the convictions for lewd acts by duress in counts three through five must be reversed for insufficient evidence because the means used to get A. to masturbate defendant—withholding or ending A.’s punishment—is not duress; (2) the flight instruction was not supported by the evidence and the failure to object to the instruction was ineffective assistance; (3) we should review for Brady material A.’s Chi

As reflected in our 2010 opinion on direct appeal from the judgment, defendant, while in jail for an altercation with Timothy Hurst (aka T-Money), called Floyd Martin and told him to “get on Money.” Martin shot Hurst several times, but Hurst survived. (People v. Martin (Nov. 30, 2010, C060683) [nonpub. opn.] (Martin).) The trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life for the conspiracy count with an additional 25 years to life for a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) & (e). The trial court also imposed but stayed an indeterminate term for the attempted murder count.

The parents appeal from an order terminating parental rights to their son under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. They contend the juvenile court erred when it determined the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) satisfied its inquiry obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law as to son’s possible Indian heritage. No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, mother, father, DCFS, and son filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional affirmance and remand to the juvenile court to permit proper compliance with ICWA and related California law. We accept the parties’ stipulation, but our disposition is a conditional reversal.
This case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions.

V.V. was born in August 2008; D.V. was born in December 2009. The events that led to the dependency orders challenged in this appeal began in May 2018.
A teacher at V.V.’s school reported to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) that V.V. disclosed an uncle had been sexually abusing her for years. V.V. discussed the abuse in detail with a Department social worker. V.V. said she mentioned the abuse to D.V. about a year earlier, but D.V. could not recall what she told him. V.V. did not believe anyone else in the home was aware of the abuse, and she had not reported it to any adults because her uncle threatened to “break the house down” and she was worried she would get in trouble.
The children told a Department social worker they lived with Father, their maternal grandmother, and two uncles. The grandmother cared for the children, and V.V. said she is “everything to [them]. She’s [their] mom, dad, gramma and grandpa.

We take the facts from the complaints, accepting them as true for purposes of these appeals.
Roger Manlin, an attorney, and Steven Milner jointly own and are the only members of eight real estate investment LLCs. Milner is the sole managing member of each LLC. Milner, without Manlin’s knowledge or consent, engaged in self-serving conduct in breach of both his fiduciary duties and the eight LLC operating agreements.
Manlin sued Milner for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unfair competition, conversion, and financial elder abuse, and sought an accounting.
Milner and the LLCs, represented by the law firm Hamburg, Karie, Edwards & Martin, and attorneys Ann Lee and Gregg Martin (collectively “Attorneys”), cross-complained for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, and sought declaratory relief and rescission of the LLC agreements.