CA Unpub Decisions

On November 8, 2016, 71 percent of voters in Santa Clara County approved a transactions and use tax (sales tax) measure proposed by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (hereafter VTA) called Measure B. On January 9, 2017, appellant Cheriel Jensen filed a complaint with three causes of action seeking to invalidate the measure. Jensen’s first two causes of action alleged Measure B was unlawful, because it did not specify the purposes for which the tax proceeds would be used and it did not contain a requirement that the tax proceeds be used only for those specified purposes. She further requested declaratory or injunctive relief. Lastly, she claimed VTA failed to respond to her public records request made under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.). VTA demurred to all three causes of action. Following a hearing, the trial court sustained VTA’s demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of VTA.

N.F. is 11 years old and Z.F. is 13 years old. An allegation of physical abuse inflicted on N.F. by the children’s father, Joseph F., was substantiated. The children’s mother, A.F., lives in Florida. Z.F. told a social worker she had not seen her mother in six years. Z.F. has Type 1 diabetes and Celiac disease.
N.F. described what happened to a social worker from the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA): “The child reported that on Tuesday or Wednesday of the prior week (3/20/18 or 3/21/18) his father became angry with him after waking him up for school. The child reported his father found some friendship bracelets on the bathroom floor near the plunger and believed the child was hiding them. The child stated that he had been in trouble in the past for hiding food in his room so his father does not trust him. The child stated the father called him into the bathroom and began yelling at him. The child reported that the father grabbed him by the hair to pull his he

Roberto Patino Aguas, Jr. (Aguas) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of receiving a stolen vehicle with a prior felony conviction and receiving stolen property. He contends that, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court erred by imposing a narcotics offender registration requirement.
We affirm. At the sentencing hearing, after the trial court imposed sentence in the instant case, the court sentenced Aguas in two drug misdemeanor cases and, in doing so, imposed the narcotics offender registration requirement of which Aguas complains. The court did not impose that requirement in the instant case. We decline Aguas’s invitation in his appellate reply brief to review whether the narcotics offender registration requirement was properly imposed in a case that is not before us. We also decline to address the separate contentions of error the Attorney General has raised for the first time in the appellate respondent’s brief and without filing a notice

Angela N. (mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court after a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (f), 12-month review hearing at which her reunification services were terminated and a permanent plan of long-term foster care was selected for her two children, K.N., now age 15, and I.K., now age 12. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to force K.N. to visit mother against his will and that reasonable services were not offered. We affirm.

Katie F. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s orders summarily denying her petition for modification seeking custody of K.F. (daughter), and its order terminating parental rights over daughter. Mother contends she made a prima facie showing sufficient to support a hearing on her petition, and that the evidence established both a benefit to daughter to continue the parental relationship and a strong sibling bond in danger of loss. Finding no error in the court’s summary denial or its order terminating parental rights, we affirm.

C.P. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s summary denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and subsequent termination of her parental rights over her sons, Joseph W. and Jacob W. (collectively, the children). She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the section 388 petition and erred in finding the children were likely to be adopted and in declining to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. We affirm.

Appellant was convicted following a jury trial on one count of child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) , and one count of corporal injury to a child (§ 273d, subd. (a)), both involving infliction of great bodily injury upon a child under the age of five (§ 12022.7, subd. (d)). Appellant admitted that he suffered a prior strike and prior serious felony conviction for robbery (§§ 211, 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)), and two prior prison terms for drug possession and felon in possession of ammunition (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant on count one to the upper term of six years, doubled pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law, plus four years for the great bodily injury enhancement, and five years for the prior serious felony. The sentence on count 2 was stayed pursuant to section 654 and, in the interests of justice, the court struck the two prior prison term enhancements. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 21 ye

Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy, Georgia Gebhardt, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Hector H. (Father) appeals the juvenile court's May 9, 2018 dispositional order, which placed Hector G. in foster care. Father contends there was insufficient evidence at the time of disposition to justify Hector's removal from Mother's custody based on Mother's mental illness. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant Michael Aaron Witkin appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate a 2005 prior conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7. We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Defendant Eliceo Morales appeals a judgment entered after his plea of no contest to felony cultivating more than six marijuana plants with specified priors (Health & Saf. Code, former § 11358, subd. (d)(1)) and diverting the natural flow of a stream (Fish & G. Code, § 1602, subd. (a)) for which he received a sentence of three years in county prison and one year county jail to run concurrently. He argues the trial court erred in failing to stay the portion of his sentence attributable to the diversion of water pursuant to Penal Code section 654 because that water was diverted to cultivate the marijuana. We requested supplemental briefing addressing: (1) the power of this court to conform defendant’s plea and sentence to reflect a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358, former subdivision (d)(3)(D), instead of former subdivision (d)(1); and (2) what effect, if any, this discrepancy had on defendant’s sentence, including the application of Penal Code section 654.

In this original proceeding, Jesse B. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating family reunification services with his son, Marvin H., (the minor) and setting the cause for a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father argues no substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) provided reasonable reunification services. We conclude the Department made substantial efforts to provide reunification services to father while he was incarcerated. Moreover, at an 18-month permanency review hearing (§ 366.22), the court had discretion to terminate reunification services and proceed with permanency planning in the absence of some exceptional circumstance showing further services would substantially and positively impact the possibility of reunification—a circumstance not present here. Father also contends the juvenile court deprived him of due process by failing

Miguel Ramirez Villasenor, Jr., appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of committing a lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)), and the trial court found true allegations that he suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (prior strike) and served three prior prison terms. (§§ 667 subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b).) The court sentenced him to seven years in state prison (upper term of three years, doubled for the prior strike, plus one year for a prior prison term). It dismissed two prior prison term allegations.

S.G. (mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to seven-year-old twins and a five-year-old daughter. She contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination did not apply. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We discern no error and affirm the order.

Maria T. appeals an order of the juvenile court sustaining the allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition and declaring her a ward of the court. We conclude that sufficient evidence exists that Maria T. committed the misdemeanor offense of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle, and affirm. (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a).)