CA Unpub Decisions

The court adjudged appellant R.A. a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after it sustained allegations charging him with felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appellant James V. appeals from a jury verdict and subsequent order finding he is gravely disabled due to a mental disorder and reappointing a conservator under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5355. Appellant contends the record lacks substantial evidence to support one aspect of the conservatorship order, that appellant “shall not have the right to refuse medical treatment that is not related to his grave disability but is necessary for the treatment of an existing or continuing medical condition.” For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Eriq Lopez Zuniga asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

Defendant David Scott Sumner contends on appeal that the sentence imposed by the trial court violated his plea agreement. We affirm.

Petitioner Mark Perez Duran was charged with committing five felony offenses when he was 17 years old. The district attorney direct-filed the information in the superior court, consistent with then-existing law. Petitioner pleaded no contest to second degree robbery and admitted a firearm enhancement, for an indicated “lid” of five years. While his sentencing hearing was pending, the “Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016” (Proposition 57) was enacted, which changed the charging procedure for juveniles. Petitioner then filed a request for the superior court to conduct a hearing and determine whether his case should be transferred to juvenile court pursuant to the provisions of the newly-enacted initiative. The superior court denied his request.

Appellant Pedro Castro pled no contest to domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 4), and he admitted a great bodily injury enhancement involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) in count 4.
On appeal, Castro contends he is entitled to remand for resentencing because in sentencing him the court: (1) considered information that was outside the record; and (2) exercised its discretion based on a misapprehension of a material aspect of his prior criminal record. Alternatively, he contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel if he forfeited these issues by defense counsel’s failure to interpose an appropriate objection. We affirm.

Alex Anthony Rubio was convicted of second degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence and causing bodily injury, driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater and causing bodily injury, failure to perform a duty following an accident resulting in death, and resisting or delaying a peace officer, all arising out of an automobile collision that resulted in the death of Princess Almonidovar. He was sentenced to an indeterminate state prison term of 15 years to life.

D.D. is the paternal grandmother (PGM) of S.A., who was age four on the date of the challenged orders. PGM challenges: (1) the juvenile court’s decision at the disposition hearing on March 12, 2018, denying her request to be evaluated for preferential relative placement under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 ; and (2) the court’s decision on April 9, 2018, to deny without a hearing her section 388 petition on the same subject. As discussed post, we affirm the court’s orders.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendant and respondent R.V. (Mother) to her son, N.V. N.V.’s sisters, objectors and appellants S.V. and H.V. (collectively, the sisters), raise three issues on appeal. First, the sisters contend the juvenile court erred by terminating Mother’s parental rights because the court should have applied the sibling relationship exception. Second, the sisters contend the juvenile court erred by not requiring plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) to make greater efforts to keep S.V., H.V., and N.V. (collectively, the children) together during the dependency proceedings. Third, the sisters assert their juvenile court attorneys were ineffective because they failed to argue that the Department needed to exercise greater diligence in placing the children together or increasing their visits. Mother, as a respondent, joins in the sisters’ contentions. We affirm the judgment.

The family law court entered a judgment of dissolution for the marriage of respondent Linda K. Hylton and appellant Joseph H. Hylton. The court ordered Joseph to pay $800 a month in spousal support. He appeals, contending the court abused its discretion in imputing income to him, but failing to impute income to Linda based on her earning capacity, her intimate relationship with a man she was renting a room from, and income from her share of the equity in the marital home. We affirm.

On December 21, 2016, plaintiff and appellant Associated Chino Teachers (ACT) filed a verified petition for writ of mandate, seeking to prevent defendant and respondent Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) from releasing two documents relating to the results of an investigation into a public high school teacher’s (Doe) actions as a girls’ volleyball coach. Doe’s actions did not result in any type of discipline or adverse action from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). The trial court denied the petition. ACT appeals contending the disclosure of these documents is not authorized under the California Public Records Act. (CPRA; Gov. Code, § 6250, et seq.) It argues that disclosure would significantly harm Doe’s privacy rights. (§ 6254, subd. (c).) Alternatively, ACT asserts the public interest in not disclosing the documents outweighs the public interest in disclosing them. (§ 6255.)

Defendant and appellant, National University (NU), appeals from the order denying its motion to compel arbitration of the wrongful termination and other employment-related claims of its former employee, plaintiff and respondent, Lakshmi Reddy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1294, subd. (a).) NU claims the trial court erroneously found that NU waived its contractual right to arbitrate Reddy’s claims. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying NU’s motion.

Appellant O.T. (Wife) appeals the dismissal of her second petition for dissolution (Second Petition) to respondent Abdou El Alaoui Lamdaghri (Husband). This case involves the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), Family Code section 3400 et. seq., and the enforcement of a divorce decree obtained in Doha, Qatar. Wife was employed by the United States Department of State (State Department) and met Husband, an airline pilot, in Morocco in 2002. They were married in Morocco in 2003 and moved to France. I.L. (Son) was born in France in 2005. Wife was transferred to Qatar in 2006. Husband got a job working for Qatar Airlines. S.L. (Daughter) was born in 2008, while they were living in Qatar. They also had another son who drowned while they were visiting family in Morocco.

A jury found David Anthony Dean guilty of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245; count 1 [Victim 2], count 2 [Victim 1]) and burglary (§ 459; count 3) and found true an allegation he entered a residence where another person, other than an accomplice, was present during the commission of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)) for breaking into the home of his relatives and assaulting Victim 1 and Victim 2 with a metal pipe. In the sanity phase of trial, the jury found Dean legally sane at the time he committed burglary (count 3) and assaulted Victim 1 (count 2), but the jury could not reach a verdict about Dean's sanity at the time he assaulted Victim 2 (count 1). The trial court granted Dean's motion for new trial on the issue of sanity after concluding the jury did not give proper weight to the testimony of two court-appointed psychologists who both opined Dean was not sane at the time he committed the charged crimes.