CA Unpub Decisions

K.C. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order concerning her then-ten-year-old twin daughters, J.C. and C.C. The juvenile court credited J.C.’s reports of sexual abuse to a social worker and others—notwithstanding her later insistence that she lied about the abuse—and asserted dependency jurisdiction over both girls. The juvenile court removed the children from Mother’s custody and placed them in the home of their father, E.L. (Father). We consider whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determinations, which hinge on the court’s decision about which of J.C’s statements to believe.

In this dependency appeal, V.D. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s finding that her mental health condition posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm to her two young children. Mother also contends the juvenile court erred when it removed the children from her care without considering alternative measures. We affirm.

In 2013, a jury found Roderick Nathaniel Washington guilty of forgery, identity theft, and second degree commercial burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 470, subd. (b), 530.5, subd. (a), 459.) He was sentenced to the upper term of three years in prison for the identity theft, and has completed the sentence.

Appellant was charged with two counts of second-degree robbery pursuant to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. Following a hearing, the juvenile court found both counts true and sustained the petition. As a condition of probation, appellant was ordered to pay victim restitution, a restitution fine, and an administrative fee. On appeal, he contends the juvenile court’s probation order must be modified to reflect the statutory basis of the restitution awards. As the statutory basis is evident, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

Defendant and appellant Ricky Andre Pickett (defendant) was on probation when police officers arrested him for domestic violence. The arrest prompted the Los Angeles County District Attorney to seek revocation of defendant’s probation. At the revocation hearing, the trial court, without objection, found defendant violated the terms of his probation not based on the grounds alleged in the revocation petition, domestic violence and grand theft, but because defendant admitted he had contact with the victim, which violated an existing protective order. We consider whether reversal is warranted for asserted violations of defendant’s constitutional due process rights to notice and to present a defense.

Appellant Anthony Jonathan Nila challenges a judgment of conviction entered following a plea of nolo contendere, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.

Batsheva Cohen appeals from (1) an order granting Constance Sullivan’s request to renew a restraining order against Cohen, and (2) an order denying Cohen’s request to renew a restraining order against Sullivan. We affirm the orders.

Defendant Laura Shipley appeals from a judgment of conviction for second degree robbery. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior crimes, and claims the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to strike a prior conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). Defendant demonstrates no error under the appropriate standards of review. We affirm.

In 2000, appellant Darrell Lee McConico smuggled cocaine into a Los Angeles jail facility. He was convicted of two felony offenses stemming from that incident: possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)(1), count 1) and possession of an illegal substance in a correctional facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a), count 2). Because appellant had two prior strike convictions, the trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life on each count. It stayed the sentence on count 2 pursuant to section 654.

The trial court entered judgment pursuant to a settlement of litigation among Daniel K. Murphy, Joan and David Hansen, and Malibu Business Trust (MBT). The judgment established an escrow through which Murphy would transfer title to certain property known as “Lot 171” to MBT in exchange for MBT’s payment of $100,000 and a grant of an easement across MBT’s property to Murphy’s property. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the judgment. After MBT failed to deposit the required funds and comply with orders to do so, the court issued an order extinguishing MBT’s right to Lot 171 and directing the court clerk to execute a deed transferring to Murphy the easement across MBT’s property. MBT appealed.

Appellant Leonard Hoyos appeals from an order denying his Proposition 36 petition for resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.126, subd. (b) ). We affirm the order.

Mark Gould appeals from the trial court’s grant of a domestic violence restraining order sought by his former girlfriend, respondent Erika Herman. Gould argues that the evidence of abuse was insufficient and that the court violated his right to due process by not allowing his minor daughters to testify. In the conclusion of his opening brief he also asks that the prohibition against his owning a firearm be reversed, but he makes no argument and cites no authority for that contention. We hold that there was substantial evidence of abuse, that Gould was not prejudiced by the exclusion of his daughters’ testimony, and that he has forfeited his challenge to the firearm prohibition. Accordingly, we affirm.

Defendant Regina Romeo appeals from an order granting a new trial in a personal injury action brought by Plaintiff Norman Espino Garrido. After Defendant rejected a proposed additur, the trial court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for new trial “on the issue of non-economic damages,” without specifying the reasons for its decision. Defendant contends the order fails to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 657 for granting a new trial on the ground of inadequate damages. We agree and reverse.

In Campbell v. Regents of the University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311(Campbell), our Supreme Court held that a public employee must exhaust internal administrative remedies before filing suit for whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. Here, appellant John A. Konecnik filed a whistleblower retaliation claim against respondent City of Los Angeles without exhausting his internal administrative remedies. Citing Campbell, respondent demurred to the entire action, and the trial court sustained the demurrer.