CA Unpub Decisions

Dean met E.L. in the parking lot of a motel in Ukiah where they both were staying in June 2020. Dean brought various drugs to E.L.’s room including something he called “yellow.” E.L. smoked the yellow off of a piece of foil using a metal straw. After E.L. took three hits of yellow, she passed out. The yellow might have been fentanyl.
While E.L. was passed out, Brittany D. came to E.L.’s room. When she arrived, Dean’s pants were around his ankles and his penis was exposed and erect. E.L. was lying on the bed, turning blue and barely breathing. She was wearing a dress and no underwear, and her dress was raised, exposing her bottom half. Another witness, Linda R., recalled that foam was coming from E.L.’s mouth. Brittany D. administered Narcan, which is a drug used to counter overdoses of fentanyl and other drugs, to E.L.

On January 31, 2002, defendant was convicted of attempted premeditated murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)), two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling/occupied building (§ 246). The jury also found true allegations of personal firearm use and discharge (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), & (d), 12022.5, subd. (a)), and street gang participation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
The trial court sentenced defendant, who was 21 years old at the time of the offenses, to an aggregate prison term of 56 years, four months to life. Defendant’s sentence comprised concurrent indeterminate life terms on both the substantive offense and the firearm enhancement under count one (attempted premeditated murder) and a consecutive determinate term of 31 years, four months on the remaining counts and enhancements.

The history of this dependency proceeding is set forth in this court’s prior opinion, which we incorporate here by reference. (Sonoma Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. C.R. (In re K.O.) (May 5, 2020, A158039) [nonpub. opn.].) In that case, this court affirmed a July 2019 dispositional order sustaining Sonoma County Department of Human Services’ (Department’s) allegations that K.O. came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 due to Mother’s ongoing substance abuse problem — she tested positive for methamphetamine, benzodiazepine, and opiates throughout her pregnancy. (In re K.O., supra, A158039; § 300, subd. (b) [child has suffered or there is substantial risk the child will suffer serious physical harm or illness resulting from parent’s failure or inability to supervise or protect the child].) The juvenile court further found true allegations that Father had a substance abuse problem, and he knew of Mother’s substance abuse but failed to intervene to protect the

On November 26, 2018, defendant was charged with making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); count 1) and false imprisonment by violence (§§ 236, 237; count 2). As to both counts, it was alleged defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). A jury trial revealed the following facts.
I. Prosecution’s Case.
Defendant lived with the victim and her young daughter from 2015 to 2017 in a single-family home in Richmond. Their relationship was marred by several incidents of violence. One time, defendant became enraged when the victim’s cousin knocked too loudly on the door. After the cousin left, defendant demanded that the victim and her daughter get in the car so that he could take them to the victim’s uncle’s house. Both females were scared and did not want to go. During the drive, defendant threatened to shoot at the house and, later, threatened to kill the victim.

In October 2006, the Khuranas obtained a $1,080,000 loan from Argent Mortgage Company, which was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust encumbering the Khuranas’ property in San Ramon (the property). Citi became the mortgage servicer for the Khuranas’ loan in 2008 and continued in that role while the beneficial interest in the loan was assigned several times. In January 2009, the Khuranas were granted a loan modification, but they failed to make their modified loan payments after May 2009.
In May 2015, a notice of default was recorded against the property, which stated that the Khuranas’ loan was in arrears in the amount of $546,287.94. At the time, the beneficiary of the deed of trust was U.S. Bank National Association as trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through certificates, Series 2007-AMC2 (Citigroup).
In September 2015, the Khuranas filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Respondent Hornblower Yachts, LLC (Hornblower) offers tours and cruises in California. Respondent Alcatraz Cruises, LLC (Alcatraz) is a concessioner to the National Park Service, offering transportation to Alcatraz Island. Hornblower is described as Alcatraz’s parent company.
Sitzmann Morris & Lavis (SML) became the insurance broker for Hornblower in 1997 and for Alcatraz in 2013. Appellants Bill Lavis and John Rogers worked as brokers for SML. After SML was sold to Brown & Brown Insurance Services (Brown & Brown) in November 2011, Lavis and Rogers became employees of Brown & Brown, but the brokerage continued to operate using SML’s name for several years.
At issue here is the extent to which appellants should be liable for respondents’ failure to comply in specified years with two ordinances of the City and County of San Francisco (City): the Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO) and the Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO).

Doe was 19 years old at the time of the 2019 trial. When she was a young child, she lived with her maternal relatives. She then lived for a time with her paternal grandmother and, when she was about six years old, went to live with defendant, who is her father. Defendant’s then girlfriend lived in the home, and soon after Doe arrived defendant’s son, M., joined the household. Doe and M., who was a few months younger than Doe, shared the apartment’s second bedroom.
When Doe was six or seven years old, defendant began compelling her to orally copulate him daily. She never refused defendant’s demands because she was “scared” to do so; she did not want him to be upset with her or to use force. Defendant told her this was something that two people did when they loved each other, and she trusted him and thought there was nothing wrong with it. However, he told her not to tell anyone about it because other people were not “okay with it.”

Every case is unique. No matter how much it resembles other cases, the parties and the issues are unique to that individual case. And we treat every case with that distinctiveness in mind, striving to give attention to the nuances which distinguish each.
But this case raises singularity to a new level. This case is before us on a Wende motion filed almost 40 years after the underlying crime. Defendant Clair was convicted of murder and two counts of burglary in 1987 for a crime committed in 1984. The jury found the special circumstance that the murder was committed in the course of a burglary to be true and returned a death penalty verdict, which the trial court imposed in its judgment.
In 1992, the California Supreme court affirmed the trial court’s judgment (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629).

As explained more fully in Edward v. Ellis (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 780, Dana Point Taxpayers Association (DPTA) is a political action committee that supported certain candidates in the 2018 Dana Point city council election. DPTA hired political consultant David Ellis to manage its campaign; Ellis concluded the best way to win was to run a negative campaign.
Ellis designed two campaign mailers suggesting that local real estate developer Sanford Edward supported and controlled the opposing candidates. The mailers also arguably insinuated Edward had been found liable for fraud and had paid damages to the City of Dana Point (the City) in a 2016 lawsuit and was now plotting to take over the city council so he could recover that money from the City.
Those insinuations were false.

On July 24, 2020, the child was taken into protective custody, pursuant to a warrant, by Alameda County Social Services (ACSS). ACSS filed a petition alleging the child was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm under section 300, subdivision (b) as a result of mother’s alcohol abuse and domestic violence between mother and father. Father’s whereabouts were unknown at the time of the child’s removal, and he was identified as an alleged father.
The child was placed with the maternal grandmother pursuant to an emergency resource family approval. Father had prior child welfare case history as a minor, and Stanislaus County had responded to two separate referrals for alleged emotional abuse and general neglect by father towards three of his other children. Mother informed the emergency response social worker from ACSS that the family had no known Indian ancestry.

On September 2, 2019, the department received a referral on behalf of the children after their three-year-old brother, A.A., suffered serious physical trauma that resulted in his death while in the care of mother and Randy A. (father). Two days later, the department filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (c), (f), (i), and (j) on behalf of the children, alleging the circumstances surrounding A.A.’s death placed them at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm and neglect. The children were placed in a licensed foster home.
The detention report showed that in June 2016 the children and A.A. were removed from mother’s custody in a Los Angeles County dependency case due to father’s substance abuse and mental health problems. Mother and father were ordered to participate in reunification services. Mother successfully reunified with the children, but father’s services were terminated after he failed to comply with his case plan.

In 2007, plaintiffs Carolyn Cortina and 12 other escrow officers (“Class Representatives”) filed a class action against their employer, then named North American Title Company, Inc., a California corporation (Former NATC/Lennar Title). In 2010, the trial court granted a motion to certify class action.
According to the docket, Judge Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Jr. made his first ruling in the case in September 2010, granting a motion in part. In September 2015, a court trial of Class Representatives’ claims for overtime began before Judge Hamilton. In October 2016, Judge Hamilton issued a statement of decision as to liability that found in favor of Class Representatives. A judgment has not yet been entered; however, there is a proposed judgment setting restitution for unpaid overtime wages at approximately $21 million and awarding a nearly equal amount in accrued prejudgment interest.

Four-month-old D.S. died on August 16, 2015, in Madera while in her parents’ custody, which led the department to file juvenile dependency petitions with respect to her siblings. Nearly five years later, on July 15, 2020, her two-year-old brother, T.S. was reported missing; his burned corpse was found eight days later in a field outside Madera. Thereafter, the department filed a mandatory report with the California Health and Human Services Agency regarding T.S.’s death, which stated law enforcement and the department investigated the death and the department determined the boy died of abuse and neglect while in his parents’ care. T.S.’s surviving siblings later became dependents of the juvenile court.
On January 13, 2021, journalist Garrett Therolf filed two separate requests for disclosure of each child’s juvenile case file using mandatory Judicial Council form JV 570.

Defendant Daniel Wayne Kain pled no contest to robbery and admitted a firearm allegation. On appeal, defendant argues that his sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded in light of Assembly Bill No. 124’s (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 124) amendments to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). The People agree that the amendments to section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), apply retroactively to defendant and require defendant’s sentence to be vacated, and the matter to be remanded for resentencing. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.