CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Ruben Arriola appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence after a jury trial. Arriola was convicted of one count of second degree murder, one count of assault with a firearm as to a second victim, and kidnapping and making criminal threats to a third victim, as a result of a series of incidents that occurred on May 23, 2013.

After pleading guilty to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310), the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Guadarrama on probation for three years, subject to various conditions. Guadarrama thereafter admitted violating the terms of his probation conditions. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced Guadarrama to sixteen months in local prison.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After having independently reviewed the entire record for error, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

A jury found Daniel Sorenson guilty of unlawfully driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) (count 1), and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d) (count 2). After the jury returned its verdicts, Sorenson admitted having suffered three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
The trial court sentenced Sorenson to a split sentence of five years, consisting of the mid-term of two years on count 1, and one year for each prison prior. The court ordered Sorenson to serve three years in county jail followed by two years of mandatory supervision. The trial court stayed the execution of sentence on count 2 pursuant section 654.
On appeal, Sorenson claims that the trial court erred in instructing the jury concerning the crime of unlawful driving (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). We conclude that the trial court properly instructed the jury and affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Cesar Mena guilty of simple kidnapping (as a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping), torture, and assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms on the torture conviction (life with the possibility of parole) and kidnapping conviction (eight years), and imposed (but stayed under Penal Code section 654) a four-year term on the assault conviction. On appeal, Mena challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his torture conviction. He also contends the trial court erred by not also staying under section 654 the sentence on his kidnapping conviction. These contentions are without merit. We therefore affirm, with directions to the trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jesus Javier Ibarra has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We shall order the modification of the sentence to include the mandatory parole revocation fine included within the abstract of judgment, but not included by the trial court in its oral pronouncement. We shall also order the amendment of the abstract of judgment to include the county collection fee imposed by the court, but not included in the abstract. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

Father C.E. (father) filed a petition for an extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition for two of his three children, An.E. and Ar.E. Father contends the court lacked jurisdiction over An.E. and Ar.E. under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400, et seq.) because the children were not in California immediately before the filing of the petition. He also challenges the court’s denial of reunification services as to them. We reject his contentions and deny his writ petition.

Cassandra C. (Mother), the mother of minors Gabriel C. and J.C., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights over the children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. On appeal, Mother contends the juvenile court and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We agree there was not an adequate investigation of the children’s possible Indian ancestry in these proceedings. We therefore remand the matter to allow the juvenile court and the DCFS to comply with ICWA and otherwise conditionally affirm.

Teresa T. (Mother) appeals from jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders of the juvenile court under subdivision (b)(1) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 with respect to her children Andrew M. (born in December 2004) and Mathew M. (born in July 2006). Mother contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jurisdictional findings that her children were at risk of harm based on domestic violence between her and Allan M. (Father) and Father’s alleged substance abuse. She also contends the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s order to remove the children from her custody and further contends the court abused its discretion in ordering her to submit to drug testing and in denying her attorney’s request for a continuance. Because the children have been returned to Mother’s custody, the appeal is moot with respect to the order removing the children from Mother. In all other respects, however, we affirm.

Pedro M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders declaring his children dependents of the court and detaining them from his custody. Among other orders, the court issued a permanent restraining order that restricted father from contact with Evelyn S. (mother) and the two minor children. Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the portion of the order protecting the children was not supported by substantial evidence because the children were “never in the line of fire” when he beat mother. We conclude the children were indeed at risk of physical harm and, in any event, father’s lengthy history of domestic violence against mother and the parents’ frequent reconciliations justify the minors’ inclusion in the restraining order. We therefore affirm.

A jury convicted Daniel Molayem (defendant) of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for 50 years to life, comprised of 25 years to life for the murder and 25 years for the gun enhancement.

Appellant Eelk Tallinna Jaani Kogudus (Jaani) was the sole beneficiary under the Will and Trust of Aime Amalie Henriette Nii (Nii), who bequeathed Jaani real estate Nii owned in Los Angeles. Respondents, who were Nii’s caretakers, allegedly procured changes to the Will and Trust in their favor through undue influence in 2000. Nii died in 2003. In 2004 Jaani received a cash distribution from the estate, yet Jaani claims it did not learn of changes made to the Will and Trust until 2012. The probate court sustained respondents’ demurrer on statute of limitations grounds to Jaani’s petition stating claims for declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and cancellation of deed. We reverse.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Gabriel Casados of driving on the wrong side of the road while fleeing a peace officer, and possession of a controlled substance. Casados contends there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for fleeing a peace officer. He also asks us to review the sealed record of an in camera hearing conducted pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). We affirm the judgment.

This case presents the rare appeal by the social services agency, and the children it is charged with protecting, from the juvenile court’s dismissal of the dependency petition filed on the children’s behalf. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code on behalf of minor children B.H. and J.H. The petition alleged the children were at substantial risk of sexual abuse based on their father C.H.’s alleged sexual abuse of his daughter, their half-sister, and their mother A.R.’s failure to keep father away from the children. Father was arrested for sexually abusing the half-sister and, while the dependency proceeding was pending, pled nolo contendere and was convicted of two felony counts of sexual abuse.

Mikail Luqman was convicted of making a false bomb threat and placed on probation. He appeals from the trial court’s judgment after an order finding he violated probation by making another bomb threat. We affirm.