CA Unpub Decisions

This appeal arises from the juvenile court's selection of a tribal customary adoption as the permanent plan for minors A.S. and E.S. and the corresponding award of full faith and credit to the tribal customary adoption order. C.S. (Father) and T.F. (Mother) appeal the court's orders, contending that their due process rights were violated by the failure of the tribe to consider evidence from the parents in developing a tribal customary adoption order and by the court's exclusion of evidence at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the juvenile court's orders in their entirety.

“On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (hereafter Proposition 47), which went into effect the next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).)” (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) Proposition 47 created a resentencing provision, codified at Penal Code section 1170.18, which provides that a person currently serving a sentence for certain designated felonies may petition for recall of the sentence to reduce felonies to misdemeanors. Defendant Denard Terell Ingram appeals from an order denying his petition to reduce a conviction from a felony to misdemeanor.

Defendant Michael Sterling Day was sentenced to state prison after pleading guilty to two counts of possessing methamphetamine for sale. For each conviction, the trial court imposed a Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 criminal laboratory analysis fee and associated penalty assessments. We affirmed defendant’s convictions in a separate appeal after appellate counsel filed a brief citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Defendant filed the instant appeal after the trial court denied his postjudgment request to strike the penalty assessments imposed on the Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 levy. (Pen. Code, § 1237.2.)

Defendant Kelly Terina Carter appeals following her no contest pleas to unauthorized use of a vehicle and possessing drug paraphernalia. Defendant challenges certain fees imposed in connection with her grant of felony probation. We affirmed the judgment with modifications, and defendant petitioned for review. The Supreme Court has transferred the matter with instructions to consider our previous decision in this appeal in light of People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100 (Ruiz). Consistent with Ruiz, we will again affirm the judgment with modifications.

Defendant Armando Guizar challenges certain fines and fees imposed following his no contest pleas to, among other crimes, attempted burglary; transportation of methamphetamine for sale; possession of marijuana; and being under the influence of methamphetamine. Defendant argues that the drug program and criminal lab analysis fees are not punitive and therefore not subject to penalty assessments. Defendant also argues, and the People concede, that the crime prevention programs fine (and attendant penalty assessments) imposed related to the attempted burglary conviction must be stricken. We previously modified and affirmed the judgment, and defendant petitioned for review. The Supreme Court has transferred the matter with instructions to consider this appeal in light of its intervening decision in People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100 (Ruiz). Consistent with Ruiz, we will again strike the crime prevention programs fine and affirm the judgment as modified.

On September 7, 2016, pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Darren Duane Coleman pled no contest to carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(1)/count 1), carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a)/count 2), and possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351)/count 3). The plea agreement also provided that Coleman would be sentenced to an aggregate local term of three years eight months: the middle term of three years on count 3, a consecutive eight-month term on count 1 (one-third the middle term of two years), and a concurrent two-year term on count 2. His sentence was to be split into 22 months of local custody and 22 months of mandatory supervision.
On October 5, 2016, the court sentenced Coleman to an aggregate, local term of three years eight months, per his plea agreement.

Yolanda Irene Aviles and Cosmen Alvarez (Aviles and Alvarez, respectively; collectively, defendants) stand convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count 2), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 3). The jury further found, with respect to Alvarez, that as to count 1, he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, proximately causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); as to count 2, he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); and as to count 3, he personally used a firearm. With respect to Aviles, the jury found, as to counts 1 and 2, a principal was armed with a firearm in commission of the offense. Aviles was sentenced to prison for 11 years plus 25 years to life, while Alvarez was sentenced to prison for 22 years four months plus 50 years to life. Both were ordered to pay victim restitution as well as various fees, fines, and assessments.

S.M. is the mother (Mother) of K.W., who was age five on the date of the challenged orders. Mother appeals from the court’s orders of March 9, 2018, denying her petition to modify a court order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, and terminating her parental rights at the hearing held under section 366.26. Specifically, Mother contends: (1) the court abused its discretion when it denied her section 388 petition; and (2) substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that the parent-child beneficial relationship exception to the presumption for adoption did not apply. For the reasons discussed post, we affirm.

On the evening of April 25, 2016, defendant entered a gas station market and briefly made small talk with the clerk. He then said to the clerk, “Come here. If you don’t want any problems, open the drawer and give me the money.” The clerk did not see defendant holding a weapon, but opened the cash drawer because she feared for her safety because of what defendant said. Defendant pulled about $50 in cash out of the drawer and fled.

Defendant and appellant Tre Lindsey-Jones appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition under Proposition 64 to redesignate as a misdemeanor his felony conviction for transporting more than an ounce of marijuana. Defendant argues: (1) he had a right to be present for the hearing and suffered prejudice from being absent; (2) the factual finding that he transported the marijuana out of the state must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not by clear and convincing evidence; (3) the trial court erred when it relied on the police report to find defendant ineligible because the report was hearsay; (4) the evidence was insufficient to prove he attempted to transport the marijuana to a location outside California; and (5) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s ruling on the above grounds.

A jury found defendant and appellant Pedro Alvarado guilty of three counts of engaging in sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a), counts 1-3) and six counts of engaging in oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b), counts 4-9). All counts were alleged to have occurred on or about October 13, 2014 through and including September 6, 2015. A trial court sentenced him to a total prison term of 165 years to life, comprised of consecutive terms of 25 years to life on counts 1 through 3 and consecutive terms of 15 years to life on counts 4 through 9. The court imposed various fees and fines, including a $4,300 sex offender fine. (§ 290.3.)

Defendant and appellant Roberto Herrera Aguilar is serving nine years in state prison after a jury found him guilty of 12 charges stemming from the discovery of illegal assault weapons and other items secreted in his vehicle. The weapons were obtained from a gun show in Arizona, and defendant drove them through an agricultural checkpoint into California.

We independently review the record in this case consistent with our obligations under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Finding no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs and appellants Victor M. Samaniego and Bertha A. Samaniego appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants and respondents Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (Specialized) and Bank of New York Mellon (at times, Bank), entered after the trial court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. The court ruled the doctrine of res judicata barred all but plaintiffs' wrongful foreclosure cause of action, and that the wrongful foreclosure cause of action failed to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the trial court erred in its ruling, and accordingly, we affirm.