CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant Myk Caruana guilty of transporting marijuana (Health & Saf. Code § 11360, subd. (a)) and not guilty of cultivating marijuana (§ 11358). At least with respect to the transportation offense, the jury rejected Caruana’s defense based on the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) (§ 11362.7 et seq.). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Caruana on three years’ formal probation.
On appeal, Caruana contends, inter alia, that his conviction for transportation of marijuana must be reversed because the 2015 amendment to section 11360 makes transportation for sale an element of the crime, and the jury made no such finding here. We agree and shall reverse the judgment and remand for possible retrial.

K.W. (mother) filed this petition for extraordinary relief after the juvenile court terminated reunification services despite her successful completion of her service plan. She contends the juvenile court’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the juvenile court’s order and deny the petition.

Lorena A. appeals the denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking a modification of dependency court orders, and the termination of her parental rights over her son, Isiah A. We affirm.

Appellant Alexander J. and N.A. (Mother) have two children, a son, Matthew H., and a daughter, “M.H.” Mother has three other young daughters, “M.A.,” “J.A.” and “G.A.” The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over Matthew and M.H. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), (d) (sexual abuse), and (j) (abuse of sibling). The jurisdictional findings were based on appellant’s alcohol abuse, multiple instances of domestic violence between appellant and Mother in which appellant physically attacked Mother, and appellant’s sexual abuse of Mother’s daughter, M.A. On appeal, appellant contests the finding that his children are at risk of sexual abuse as the result of his molestation of M.A., and the dispositional requirement that he participate in sexual abuse counseling for perpetrators. Finding no error, we affirm.

The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over a two-year-old boy based on his father’s sexual abuse of the boy’s stepsister. On appeal, the father argues no evidence suggested his sexual abuse of his stepdaughter indicated his son was at risk of harm. We affirm.

Defendant Richard Alan Ball appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 and Penal Code section 1170.18. We affirm the order.

Rosie E., the mother of now-10-year-old Angel E., appeals the juvenile court’s December 4, 2017 order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Rosie contends the court erred in ruling she had failed to establish the parent-child-relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) or the sibling-relationship exception to termination of parental rights (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v)). We affirm.

Defendant Steven Thomas Pack (aka Steven Pack Pack and Steve A. Pack) appeals from a judgment of conviction. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We have reviewed the record, conclude the record reveals no arguable issue on appeal, and thus affirm.

Appellant Marvin Lewis Tuggle appeals his convictions following a jury trial on three counts of second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459). He contends the trial court’s denial of his request for self-representation under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta), warrants reversal of his convictions. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the timing of appellant’s Faretta request immediately following the denial of his Marsden motion, along with his obstreperous conduct while in jail, justified denying his request for self-representation. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s judgment.

Defendant Wen Tu Chen appeals from a judgment following a bench trial. Plaintiff Chen Chuang Wei is the current trustee of the Huang 2013 Family Trust dated June 19, 2013 (Huang Trust) and defendant’s stepson. Plaintiff’s mother, Huang Miao Wei , was the trustee until her death in 2016. Huang and defendant were previously married and purchased property together. After their divorce, Huang as trustee of the Huang Trust sold her 50 percent interest in the property to defendant for $900,000.

The jury convicted defendant and appellant Ivan Alfaro of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246 [count 1]) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2) [count 2]), and found true the allegations that Alfaro personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a) in both counts. It found not true the allegations that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) Alfaro admitted suffering a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Willie Poindexter petitioned for dissolution of his long-term marriage to Susan Poindexter. Susan did not respond to the petition and a default judgment was entered. The trial court also entered an order forfeiting Susan’s community property interest in Willie’s retirement account.

As a sanction for discovery abuse, the trial court dismissed the underlying action by appellants Joel and Telma Andrews against respondent Sierra Corporate Management, Inc. (Sierra). We reject appellants’ challenges to the dismissal and affirm.

D.Y. (Mother), mother of one-year-old A.Y., appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her petition for modification, filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, and its order terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan, pursuant to section 366.26. Mother contends the court (1) abused its discretion when it denied her oral section 388 petition for modification, and (2) erred when it found inapplicable the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption. We shall affirm the juvenile court’s orders.