CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Lamont Williams, after a plea, was convicted of one count of felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1).) He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash and traverse the search warrant (a portion of which was sealed to protect the identity of confidential informants) and to suppress evidence. He requests this court to review the sealed portions of the warrant to determine whether the affidavit supports a finding of probable cause, and if not, to reverse the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. (See People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs).)

A.K., mother of the minors A.G., C.G., and M.G., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26 & 395.) She contends the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption applied and in finding the minors adoptable. Finding the exception did not apply and the minors were generally adoptable, we shall affirm.

Ricardo T., the presumed father of Olivia T., appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order removing then-two-year-old Olivia from his custody, releasing her to her mother B.W. (Mother) and terminating dependency jurisdiction with an order granting Mother sole legal and physical custody of Olivia and limiting Ricardo to monitored visitation. Ricardo contends the court’s jurisdiction findings that Olivia was at substantial risk of sexual abuse and physical harm and its disposition order removing her from his custody are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

In January 2015, J.S. was found incompetent to stand trial on charges that he committed multiple sex offenses against a child under age 14 and against a child 10 years or younger. Thereafter, J.S. was committed to Napa State Hospital. In April 2016, Napa State Hospital advised the court there was no substantial likelihood J.S. would regain mental competency prior to the expiration of his commitment, and in January 2017, a jury found the requirements were met to establish a mental health conservatorship for J.S. under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (the LPS Act).
The following month, on February 1, 2017, the trial court filed an order appointing the Public Guardian of Contra Costa County (Public Guardian) as J.S.’s conservator and setting a placement hearing. J.S. appeals from that order, contending that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting the jury to consider evidence of the treatment he would receive if he was placed under conservatorship.

This is the second time we have been presented with appellate issues arising from these parties' dispute over their respective easement rights to the use of a common residential driveway. Plaintiffs and respondents Joseph and Monique Howeth (the Howeths) own one property served by a recorded reciprocal easement, and they sued the other owner, defendant and appellant Tina Coffelt, for injunctive relief against interference with its terms. A negotiated settlement agreement (the Agreement) and stipulated judgment ensued.

A jury convicted Angela Hadley, Rosechell Marquerite Murray, Suzan Ann McFadden, and Erica Yvonne Sanford of grand theft, perjury, conspiracy, forgery, and petty theft, in connection with signed statements they made in 2008, 2009, and 2010 to obtain payments from county and state agencies for child care at Hadley’s childcare operation. All four defendants appealed, and we affirm in part and reverse in part.

When he was 17 years old, Deshawn K. Johnson was charged with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and other offenses relating to two armed robberies of pizza restaurants in Fairfield, California. Johnson was charged in adult criminal court and convicted upon his plea of no contest to one count of second degree robbery (§ 211), and one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)). His sentence included a 10-year enhancement for personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and he was sentenced to 15 years in state prison.

Defendant and appellant Raymond Charles Atkins, Jr., appeals from the superior court’s ruling denying without prejudice his Proposition 47 petition. Defendant relies on People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903 (Romanowski), which held, after the trial court ruled on his petition, that courts may consider evidence of stolen items’ value in an illicit market when determining whether the theft involved an item with a value of $950 or less. The police report includes a statement by defendant to a police officer that he paid $50 for all of the stolen items he possessed.

Father M. J. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and freeing the minors (ages six and four) for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) He contends the juvenile court erred in denying his section 388 petition to reinstate services and to vacate the selection and implementation hearing. He also contends the court erred in failing to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to prevent termination of parental rights. We affirm.

A jury convicted Marvin Collins (defendant) of injuring a spouse, cohabitant, or girlfriend through the personal infliction of great bodily injury after he beat his on-again, off-again girlfriend in his duplex apartment. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court committed numerous instructional and evidentiary errors and also committed reversible error in imposing a six-year prison sentence rather than placing him on probation. We conclude there was no reversible error, and affirm.

Defendant Charles Reynolds was convicted of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury after he killed Kenneth Fisher by punching him. The jury also found true an enhancement allegation that Reynolds personally inflicted great bodily injury. On appeal, Reynolds claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting when the trial court remarked that it could use the jury’s finding that Reynolds inflicted great bodily injury as an aggravating factor to impose the upper term for the assault conviction. Although the remark reflected a misunderstanding of the law, it had no impact on the proceedings because the court ultimately did not impose the upper term for that conviction. Reynolds’s counsel was not ineffective by failing to object to an inconsequential sentencing remark. Accordingly, we affirm.

In 2005, the County of San Bernardino Department of Child Support Services (Department) obtained a default judgment for child support against Mark Anthony Davis. In 2016, Davis filed a motion to rescind his voluntary declaration of paternity and to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied the motion.
Davis appeals, contending:
1. The trial court lacked jurisdiction because Davis was never properly served.
2. The Department lacks standing to prosecute this action.
We reject these contentions. In addition, Davis states that he never signed the voluntary declaration of paternity; however, we conclude that he has not properly raised this or any other appellate contention not listed above. Hence, we will affirm.

A jury convicted codefendants Amber Griffin, Calvin Kelly, Jessie Arellano, and Angelina Olsen of robbery and related charges. The information was based on two separate incidents: the carjacking of P.H. by Kelly and Olsen, and the aggravated kidnapping of R.N. by Kelly, Griffin and Arellano. The two incidents were initially filed separately and later were consolidated by the trial court. On appeal, Griffin and Arellano challenge the court’s decision to consolidate the cases, and raise claims of insufficiency of the evidence, instructional and evidentiary error, and prosecutorial misconduct. Kelly claims the trial court made various sentencing errors, an argument in which Arellano joins. Finally, all appellants ask that the case be remanded for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 620 dealing with firearm enhancements. We affirm the conviction as modified, and reverse for a new sentencing hearing as to Kelly, Arellano and Griffin.

A jury convicted codefendants Amber Griffin, Calvin Kelly, Jessie Arellano, and Angelina Olsen of robbery and related charges. The information was based on two separate incidents: the carjacking of P.H. by Kelly and Olsen, and the aggravated kidnapping of R.N. by Kelly, Griffin and Arellano. The two incidents were initially filed separately and later were consolidated by the trial court. On appeal, Griffin and Arellano challenge the court’s decision to consolidate the cases, and raise claims of insufficiency of the evidence, instructional and evidentiary error, and prosecutorial misconduct. Kelly claims the trial court made various sentencing errors, an argument in which Arellano joins. Finally, all appellants ask that the case be remanded for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 620 dealing with firearm enhancements. We affirm the conviction as modified, and reverse for a new sentencing hearing as to Kelly, Arellano and Griffin.