CA Unpub Decisions

Alexander M. appeals from a true finding on a robbery allegation adjudicated against him in juvenile court. He argues the juvenile court prejudicially erred in admitting a witness’s prior statement at his jurisdiction hearing. We agree and reverse. Alexander further argues the evidence underlying the true finding on the robbery allegation is insufficient, barring retrial. We disagree and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

After Marlo Marks (Marks) died intestate, her son, Ronald Marks, Sr. (Ronald Sr.), her grandson, Ronald Marks, Jr. (Ronald Jr.), and Ronald Jr.’s mother, Kathryn Mattos (Mattos) each tried unsuccessfully to become administrator of her estate. The probate court appointed Riverside County as Public Administrator and ultimately approved the Public Administrator’s petition to distribute the estate to Ronald Sr., Marks’s only child. Representing himself as he did during the probate proceedings, Ronald Jr. appeals the final distribution, claiming his father committed extrinsic fraud by harassing and intimidating him and Mattos to keep them out of the probate proceedings. To support this allegation, Ronald Jr. asks us to take judicial notice of various documents that were not presented to the trial court.
We will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Allen Keith Hendrix appeals following his convictions for attempted premeditated murder, malicious assault with a deadly weapon by a life prisoner (§ 4500), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of a sharp instrument in prison (§ 4502). He contends: (1) assault with a deadly weapon is a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon by a life prisoner and therefore, that conviction must be reversed; (2) the sentence for possession of a sharp instrument must be stayed under section 654; and (3) errors in the abstract of judgment require correction. The People properly concede that assault with a deadly weapon by a life prisoner is a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon. Accordingly, we will reverse that conviction. We also agree there are errors in the abstract of judgment that require correction. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

It is undisputed that appellant Ernesto Murillo Villegas had sex with the victim in this case, Anne H., during a New Year’s Eve party. However, it was disputed whether the sex was consensual and, if not, whether Anne was intoxicated or unconscious. The court instructed the jury that it could find appellant guilty of rape of an intoxicated person or rape of an unconscious person, but not both. The jury convicted him of rape of an intoxicated person (count 1) and he received a three-year prison sentence.
Appellant raises four issues on appeal. First, he contends the trial court erred in permitting the admission of his police interview, which he claims was coercive. Second, he argues the court erred in prohibiting defense counsel from impeaching Anne at trial with a text message she had sent to a witness; respondent concedes error on this issue but asserts it was harmless.

Brandon Lamb appeals a three-year civil harassment restraining order in favor of Brooke Moramarco. We review the order for substantial evidence. (Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, 497.) We affirm.

Plaintiff John B. Hackert, a medical doctor, sued Sutter Medical Foundation and related entities to be reimbursed for services he provided as an assistant surgeon. Sutter, however, had not authorized his services and plaintiff provided those services after he terminated his contract with Sutter and after Sutter informed him it would not pay for unauthorized services. Plaintiff alleged that state law governing managed health care, federal Medicare law, and unfair competition law (as it may apply to a breach of his prior contract with Sutter) entitled him to injunctive relief compelling Sutter to pay for the unauthorized services.
The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. We reverse, but only to allow plaintiff to plead a common law cause of action for breach of his prior contract. All of his current causes of action fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying three potentially arguable issues: (1) whether defendant may appeal his entry of the plea and the factual basis for that plea without having obtained a certificate of probable cause; (2) whether defendant may appeal the sentence without having obtained a certificate of probable cause; and (3) whether defendant received the agreed upon sentence. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Jesus Castillo of two counts of attempted murder. The jury did not find the crimes to be willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The jury found true allegations that Castillo personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury to victim Jose Lopez, that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the attempted murder of victim Oscar Lopez, and that he committed the crimes for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang. Castillo challenges his conviction on a number of grounds. We find no error and therefore affirm.

H.S. and James E. appeal an order terminating parental rights to their son, Collin E., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. James and H.S. argue there is no substantial evidence to support the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) finding that continued custody of the child by the parents was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. (25 U.S.C. § 1912(f), Welf. & Inst. Code § 224.6, subd. (b)(1).) They also assert the juvenile court erred when it determined the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply and terminated parental rights. We affirm.

Defendant Alon Oneil Foster appeals from a conviction for domestic violence. Appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Our review of the record revealed an unauthorized $500 domestic violence fee under Penal Code section 1203.097. We therefore modify the judgment to strike it. We also direct the trial court to correct the sentencing minute order to reflect the deletion of this fee and to correct a typographical error. As modified, we affirm the judgment.

In 2015, defendant Esmeralda Solis appealed from the denial of her petition for recall and resentencing under Proposition 47, arguing that the initiative, which reduced the penalty for theft of property worth $950 or less, applied to her felony conviction for taking or driving a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). We concluded she was not convicted of a qualifying theft offense and affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review and has now transferred the case back to us for reconsideration in light of its decision in People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page).
We now conclude defendant may have been convicted of a qualifying offense. We therefore grant her requested relief and affirm without prejudice to defendant filing a new petition that establishes her eligibility for resentencing—or, given the passage of time, reclassification—under Proposition 47.

Daniel Christopher Carbajal challenges his convictions for felony obstructing or resisting an officer by use of force, carrying a loaded firearm in public without being the registered owner, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon. He asks for independent review of the trial court’s Pitchess inquiry. He also contends his convictions must be reversed because the trial court erred in denying his motions for mistrial. Finally, citing People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, he argues reversal is mandated because of the prejudicial effect of inadmissible testimony from the People’s gang expert. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Christopher J. Renner pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a young child over a two-year period and admitted he was ineligible for probation. The prosecution agreed to a maximum sentence of 12 years in state prison, the midterm for the offense. After a lengthy sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the midterm of 12 years. Renner now appeals the sentence on multiple grounds. We affirm.

Appellant, the County of Fresno (County), adopted an ordinance banning the cultivation of medical marijuana as a public nuisance. Pursuant to this ordinance, the County has the authority to impose administrative fines for violations.
The County discovered that respondent, Xiongh Thao, had 99 marijuana plants growing on his property. The Fresno County Deputy Sheriffs who visited the property advised Thao that the ordinance banned cultivation of the plants. Thao immediately removed the plants. Three days later, the County presented Thao with a notice giving him the choice to abate the public nuisance by removing all the plants within 15 days. Thereafter, the County imposed a $99,000 administrative penalty on Thao.