CA Unpub Decisions

Petitioner S.V. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (8.452), challenging the juvenile court’s denial of reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3), and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother argues the court erred in applying section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3), to bypass reunification services with regard to her child, M.C. (the child). We disagree and deny mother’s petition.

Evidence showed that, when R.M. (minor) was eleven years old, he made a seven-year-old male relative orally copulate him. As a result, the trial court found true an allegation of unlawful oral copulation by force or fear (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(B)) and placed the minor on probation in the custody of his mother.

Defendant and appellant Jeremy Scott Weitzeil appealed from a post-judgment order denying his Proposition 47 petition for resentencing and to redesignate his 2015 felony conviction for unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle with a prior vehicle theft conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code , § 666.5, subd. (a)) to misdemeanor petty theft (§§ 490.2, 1170.18, subds. (a), (f), (g)).
On appeal, defendant argued that Proposition 47 and the equal protection clause required that his conviction for unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), be reduced to a misdemeanor and that the matter be remanded for a hearing to determine facts essential to this determination based on admissible evidence. Defendant also believed that Proposition 47 does not place the burden on the petitioner to establish eligibility.

K.H. (Mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court declining to return her two children, H.T. and A.T., to her custody at the six-month review hearing and granting the children's foster parents de facto parent status. We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that returning the children to Mother's care would create a substantial risk of detriment to their well-being and that the court did not abuse its discretion by granting the foster parents de facto parent status. We therefore affirm the orders.

In this action for a state tax refund against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), Plaintiff Verizon Business Purchasing LLC (Verizon) appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained CDTFA's demurrer to Verizon's first amended complaint without leave to amend.

In this action for a state tax refund against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), Plaintiff GTE Communications Systems Corporation (GTE) appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained CDTFA's demurrer to GTE's first amended complaint without leave to amend.
The California Sales and Use Tax Law (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6001 et seq.) (SUTL) imposes sales and use taxes on retailers and purchasers for the sale, use, storage, or consumption of tangible personal property within California. Certain categories of property are excluded from the definition of tangible personal property and therefore are not subject to sales and use taxation. Under section 6016.5, one such category of excluded property includes "telephone and telegraph lines, electrical transmission and distribution lines, and the poles, towers, or conduit by which they are supported or in which they are contained." This appeal requires us to decide wh

In this action for a state tax refund against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), Plaintiff Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (Verizon) appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained CDTFA's demurrer to Verizon's first amended complaint without leave to amend.
The California Sales and Use Tax Law (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6001 et seq.) (SUTL) imposes sales and use taxes on retailers and purchasers for the sale, use, storage, or consumption of tangible personal property within California. Certain categories of property are excluded from the definition of tangible personal property and therefore are not subject to sales and use taxation. Under section 6016.5, one such category of excluded property includes "telephone and telegraph lines, electrical transmission and distribution lines, and the poles, towers, or conduit by which they are supported or in which they are contained." This appeal requires us to d

In this action for a state tax refund against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), Plaintiff MCI Communications Services, Inc. (MCI) appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained CDTFA's demurrer to MCI's first amended complaint without leave to amend.
The California Sales and Use Tax Law (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6001 et seq.) (SUTL) imposes sales and use taxes on retailers and purchasers for the sale, use, storage, or consumption of tangible personal property within California. Certain categories of property are excluded from the definition of tangible personal property and therefore are not subject to sales and use taxation. Under section 6016.5, one such category of excluded property includes "telephone and telegraph lines, electrical transmission and distribution lines, and the poles, towers, or conduit by which they are supported or in which they are contained." This appeal requires us to decide whether

After being convicted of stalking a woman, P.D., and serving a jail sentence for that crime, Jeffrey Roger Peterson began stalking and harassing Christopher Leahy, the San Diego police officer who arrested him. In 2014 the superior court granted Leahy's request for a civil harassment restraining order against Peterson, which would expire in April 2017.
This appeal is from an order renewing that restraining order for another five years. Peterson contends the renewed restraining order should be reversed because (1) the trial court impermissibly restricted his cross-examination of Leahy, (2) the court improperly "automatically renewed" the injunction, and (3) the court was biased. We reject these assertions and affirm.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Louis R. Hanoian, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions.
John E. Edwards, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Asistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Mary K. Strickland, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Kevin Megown beat Michelle R., the mother of his child. After one incident where Michelle's mother, Maria R., came to aid her, Megown threatened to kill both of them as he held a gun. A jury convicted Megown of violating a domestic violence restraining order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)), possessing an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 30605, subd. (a)), and inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5 subd. (a)). It also found true allegations that he inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8))

Defendant Rakim Exavier Leedy appeals from his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)—count 1) and discharging a firearm from a vehicle (§ 26100, subd. (c)—count 2) with true findings on both counts that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). On appeal, he contends: (1) the matter must be remanded to allow the trial court to consider exercising its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements; (2) the true finding on the firearm enhancement on count 2 must be stricken as it was not alleged in the information in violation of his due process rights; and (3) he is entitled to an additional day of custody credit. We agree the matter must be remanded to the trial court to consider exercising its discretion on the firearm enhancement, and we find the imposition of a firearm enhancement on count 2 was an unauthorized sentence that can be corrected at any time. We will reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
On April 9, 2015, in case No. 15F1718 (case No. 1718), a complaint was filed charging defendant Trenton Cameron Conant with possession of heroin while armed with a loaded, operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count 1); possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 2); sale or transportation of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 3); possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 4); possession of an injecting or smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1; count 5); and driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a); count 6).

Defendant James Michael Hoodman appeals from a judgment entered after a jury verdict finding him guilty of stalking. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b).) The jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on a criminal threats charge (Pen. Code, § 422), resulting in its dismissal at the People’s request.
Defendant contends the judgment must be reversed for multiple reasons arising from two separate errors concerning impeachment evidence and a jury instruction on prior acts of domestic violence.
We affirm the judgment.

James Floyd Wilson appealed the superior court’s ruling denying his motion for resentencing and request to strike or dismiss the gun enhancement imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.5. We appointed counsel to represent Wilson on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. Wilson filed his own supplemental brief, in propria persona.