CA Unpub Decisions

The Project site is located within a commercial office and industrial, low and medium-rise, mixed-use neighborhood. It sits at the intersection of Beatrice Street and South Jandy Place, both cul-de-sac streets and is zoned industrial M2-1. Some of the uses for which the neighborhood is appropriate include warehousing, distribution and storage, light manufacturing, and multi-family housing. Several commercial office and industrial buildings are located to the west, north, and southeast of the Project site, including two-story commercial office and industrial buildings to the east. A five-level parking structure is located adjacent to the Project site’s northeastern side. There is a single-family residential neighborhood to the east and a five-story apartment building located on the southwestern side.

Dominguez was tried three times for a shooting that resulted in one death and two injuries, the first two trials resulting in mistrials and the third in a 2002 conviction that we affirmed in 2003. (People v. Prudencio Dominguez (Nov. 19, 2003, B159705) [nonpub. opn.] (Dominguez).)
In Dominguez, we set forth the facts as follows:
“In 1995, Alonzo Ramirez (one of the attempted murder victims) moved with his wife and three children to a house on Tremont Street within the territory claimed by “Big Hazard” (a mostly Hispanic street gang) and marked by its graffiti. Ramirez saw gang members on the street almost everyday, including Dominguez (a tattooed member of Big Hazard). Ramirez’s eldest son joined a rival gang, “Krazy Ass Mexicans,” and moved out of the house—but visited his parents at their home, conduct which was viewed by Big Hazard’s members as a sign of disrespect to their gang.
“On August 20, 2000, someone broke the alley-side windows of Ramirez’s house.

Defendant Clarence Deshawn Cater appeals from a trial court order at a resentencing hearing declining to dismiss or strike firearm enhancements pursuant to the recent changes to Penal Code section 12022.53.
Defendant was convicted of murder (§ 187), second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5), and shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246). The jury found true certain gang and firearm enhancements (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022.53, subds. (c)–(d)), as well as felony-murder and gang-related special circumstances (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17) & (22)). The court sentenced defendant to prison for life without the possibility of parole, plus 50 years, which included enhancements imposed pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (d).

In December 2017, Simpson hired Williams as a fabrication layout technician. Williams reported to the production department supervisor, Chris Altomare. He worked in the production office with three other employees: Angel Mosqueda, a special products technician; Francisco Rendon, the production lead; and Norah Picardo. Each employee in the office had his or her own workstation with a computer that was accessed with a unique username and confidential password.
Prior to Simpson’s hiring Williams as a fabrication layout technician, a Simpson supervisor, Damian Flores, asked Angel Mosqueda if he knew anyone who was qualified for the opening. Mosqueda suggested a former coworker who ultimately did not apply for the position. Flores followed up with Mosqueda a few weeks later, and Mosqueda then suggested his brother. However, Mosqueda’s brother was not looking for work at the time and was not even in the country.

The victim and Barbara Washburn lived in an apartment in the East Bay. Washburn became acquainted with Garcia through her son, Joaquin Agredano. Garcia and Agredano were both friends with the victim. On July 20, 2007, Washburn and Agredano picked up Garcia to drive to San Francisco. On the way, Garcia stopped to collect a bag containing a shotgun from an acquaintance’s home. During the drive and while at a San Francisco bar, Washburn complained about the victim’s treatment of her. Garcia noted he did not like the victim and expressed the need to confront him. When the three drove back to the East Bay, Garcia demanded to be taken to the victim’s house.
That night, a neighbor heard people walking up the stairs to the victim’s apartment, rapid knocking on the door, and a female voice stating, “Open the door.” The neighbor then heard the female walk down the stairs and state, “this is a bunch of [shit].” Later, two people walked up the stairs again.

We summarize only the facts necessary to resolve this appeal.
D.G. and Ezekiel G. (minors) were the subjects of a dependency petition filed by Alameda County Social Services Agency (agency) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1), (e), and (j). Under subdivision (e), the petition alleged that parents were the sole care providers for five-week-old Ezekiel and two-year-old D.G, and that while in their care, Ezekiel sustained “several unexplained, non-accidental injuries consisting of two abdominal horizontal bruises, bruises on the tip of the index finger, torn inner top lip, bruises on the penis, subdural hematoma, left and right wrist fracture as well as a left corner fracture.” The petition further alleged D.G. had sustained “bruises to his left cheek and above his right knee.”
The agency’s jurisdictional report noted that parents had been married eight years, and had two children, D.G. and Ezekiel.

At all relevant times, defendants were editorial board members of the Haiti Action Committee (HAC). HAC publishes an online, monthly newsletter called Haiti Solidarity that covers current events and issues in Haiti.
In April 2019, defendants published an article in the newsletter titled “The Lasalin Massacre” with the subheading “Is it an accidental event, a fight between rival gangs to control an area, or a calculated and planned political act?” The article identified Baussan by name twice, once in the first paragraph and once in the last paragraph of the article. Baussan filed the subject action against defendants, alleging defamation (libel) and false light. According to the complaint, Baussan “currently serves as the Vice President of Unibank, S.A. and is widely respected in the business and local community in which he engages and resides.”

On January 24, 2018, Kravchuk, then represented by counsel, filed a Judicial Council form complaint against Taylor alleging a claim for breach of written contract.
On December 30, 2019, Kravchuk, as a self-represented litigant, filed a first amended complaint alleging six causes of action against Taylor: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) bad faith denial of contract; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) intentional interference with economic advantage; and (6) negligent interference with economic advantage. Taylor filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint that challenged the noncontract causes of action; Taylor also filed a motion to strike portions of the first amended complaint. In opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike, Kravchuk stated that she had filed a wrong version of the first amended complaint and that the filing of the correct version would cure any claimed deficiencies.

Nine-year-old Luis was removed from mother’s custody in October 2018 along with his five-year-old sister H.L. and two-year-old sister J.M. by the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) because of mother’s ongoing methamphetamine use and failure to adequately supervise and care for the children. The children were placed in foster care.
Mother received 12 months of reunification services and consistently visited the children but continued to use methamphetamine. At the 12-month review hearing in December 2019, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. The court ordered continued weekly supervised visits for mother with the children. By that time, the children were living in separate foster homes because of their disruptive behavior. Luis, who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, was in his seventh placement.

Nine-year-old Luis was removed from mother’s custody in October 2018 along with his five-year-old sister H.L. and two-year-old sister J.M. by the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) because of mother’s ongoing methamphetamine use and failure to adequately supervise and care for the children. The children were placed in foster care.
Mother received 12 months of reunification services and consistently visited the children but continued to use methamphetamine. At the 12-month review hearing in December 2019, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. The court ordered continued weekly supervised visits for mother with the children. By that time, the children were living in separate foster homes because of their disruptive behavior. Luis, who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, was in his seventh placement.

After a Kings County Sheriff’s Deputy observed defendant repeatedly crossing double yellow lines while driving, he initiated a traffic stop. After learning defendant was on probation, the deputy asked defendant if there was anything illegal in the vehicle. Defendant admitted there was a gun in a compartment in the driver’s door, and a passenger in the car admitted there was a pipe under the passenger seat. Defendant was arrested, and at the jail, it was determined defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance. A strip search revealed defendant had a baggie with some form of contraband in his belly button.

At the time this family came to the attention of the agency in March 2020, Christopher was 11 years old, and Juan was three years old. Father and mother were no longer a couple and had a highly contentious relationship. At the outset of the proceedings, father had full legal and physical custody of Christopher, and the parents had “50/50” custody of Juan. The parents had restraining orders against one another and would exchange Juan at the police station. Father had made multiple police reports against mother dating back to 2019, with father alleging mother followed him when he had the children in the vehicle on a few occasions and that her boyfriend had threatened him with a firearm. The most recent of these reports was on March 1, 2020 – father made a report that mother and her boyfriend were following him in a vehicle, and at one point, mother’s boyfriend pointed a firearm at him and yelled “ ‘I’ll kill you.’ ”

In 1999, a jury convicted defendant Timothy Leon Whitfield, in part, of second degree murder and found true allegations he personally used a firearm during the commission of the murder in violation of Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) and he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which proximately caused great bodily injury or death to another person, not an accomplice, during the commission of the murder in violation of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)
In March 2021, defendant submitted a “Motion for Discriminatory Relief” pursuant to section 745, subdivision (a). The trial court denied the motion in an order stating, “Case is final. Therefore, defendant is not eligible for resentencing as requested in motion/petition.” Defendant did not appeal from that order.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Judge.
Joshua G. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Eriq Ray Abernathy contends on appeal that his $296 presentence report fee must be vacated because Assembly Bill 1869’s (2019−2022) (Assembly Bill 1869) amendment to Penal Code section 1203.1b must be applied to his case. We vacate the portion of the judgment requiring payment of fees pursuant to former section 1203.1b. We affirm in all other respects.