CA Unpub Decisions

Jo.C. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders regarding his two sons, O.J. and C.J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395, subd. (a)(1) [dispositional orders appealable]; In re M.C. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 784, 801 [jurisdictional findings reviewable on appeal from dispositional orders].) He contends insufficient evidence supports the court’s jurisdictional findings. We dismiss the appeal.

In People v. Hatt (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 321 (Hatt), we held that “a person who suffers a disqualifying conviction after filing a redesignation application but prior to the trial court’s ruling on that application is barred from relief under [Penal Code] section 1170.18.” (Hatt at p. 324.) The Hatt decision guides our analysis of this Proposition 47 appeal.
Appellant Jose Luis Ortiz, Jr. applied to have his 2006 felony drug conviction redesignated as a misdemeanor. The trial court continued the matter pending the outcome of an attempted murder case against appellant. After appellant was convicted the court denied his redesignation request. Following Hatt, we affirm the denial of appellant’s application.

Moneak Johnson appeals after she pled no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) following the denial of her motion to suppress (§ 1538.5). The trial court imposed a 16-month state prison sentence and ordered it to run concurrently with a sentence imposed against appellant in another case.

Jordan Lee Verts was charged with committing a battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)), a crime punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor. During deliberations, the jury informed the court it was “[h]ung at 7-5 for not guilty.” Out of the jury’s presence, Verts moved to dismiss the charge pursuant to section 1385. The court denied Verts’s request but on its own motion declared the charge “a misdemeanor, for all purposes” pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b) (hereinafter section 17(b)). After questioning the jurors, the court determined that the jury was “hopelessly deadlocked” and declared a mistrial. The People now purport to appeal from the court’s declaration, asserting it is “[a]n order modifying the verdict or finding by . . . modifying the offense to a lesser offense.” (§ 1238, subd. (a)(6).) Verts claims that the challenged ruling is not such an order. We agree and dismiss the appeal.

The People appeal the trial court’s order reducing Timothy Eugene Case’s nine felony convictions for identity theft under Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a) to misdemeanor shoplifting under section 459.5, subdivision (a). They argue that section 459.5, enacted as part of Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18), does not apply to section 530.5 identity theft offenses involving $950 or less, and that the trial court erred in reclassifying them as misdemeanors. We recently rejected this argument in People v. Jimenez (May 8, 2018, B283858) _ Cal.App.5th _ [2018 Cal.App. Lexis 410] (Jimenez). For the reasons set forth in that opinion, we affirm.

Billy Ray Redding is committed for an indeterminate term of treatment as a sexually violent predator (SVP). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.) He appeals from an order summarily denying his petition for conditional release as frivolous. (§ 6608, subd. (a).) He contends (1) his petition is not frivolous; (2) the SVP law violates his rights to due process and equal protection because it does not allow him to petition for immediate unconditional release; and (3) it violates his right to equal protection because similarly situated committed people who petition for release are not subject to threshold review for frivolousness. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Leslie Croaker appeals his conviction for making criminal threats. He contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats. We affirm the judgment.

Steve Paul Sanchez was convicted by jury of weapon and drug charges. He contends that the evidence against him was obtained in an illegal search. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence.
We affirm. Appellant was stopped for speeding. He became combative during the ensuing investigation of his sobriety and was arrested. The incriminating evidence came from a lawful search of appellant when he was arrested. We modify the judgment by staying appellant’s sentence on count 3 (possession of a controlled substance), which is duplicative of the sentence imposed on count 1 (possession of a controlled substance with a firearm). (Pen. Code, § 654.)

Defendant and appellant Robert Careaga appeals his conviction for first degree burglary. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and the trial court erred by failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of attempted burglary. We affirm the judgment.

An altercation between defendant and appellant Bernard Williams (defendant), defendant’s acquaintance Evian Hayden (Hayden), and victim Raynard Fulton (Fulton) left Fulton dead of a gunshot wound. On trial for the killing, defendant sought to sow doubt regarding who shot Fulton. A jury found defendant was the shooter and convicted him of second degree murder.

Plaintiff and appellant Hilda Aranda (Aranda) appeals a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, defendant and respondent County of Los Angeles (the County), and two of her former supervisors, Kelly Saldivar (Saldivar) and Tatiana Moskova (Moskova) (sometimes collectively referred to as the County).
The issues presented include whether certain actions taken by the County amounted to adverse employment actions, whether Aranda raised a triable issue that she was denied certain positions on account of her age, and whether conduct by the County occurring outside the limitations period is actionable under the continuing violations doctrine.
We reject Aranda’s claims of error and affirm the judgment.

These consolidated appeals arise from petitions filed by Priscilla Hunt and Samuel Ingham for an order of substituted judgment and for reformation or modification of the living trust of Priscilla’s husband, Donald Hunt. Priscilla and Ingham asserted that relief was warranted because Donald intended his entire estate to pass to Priscilla upon his death, yet was prevented from doing so due to the need to settle contested litigation with his estranged sons. The Attorney General opposed the petitions on the basis that they were contrary to Donald’s intent that the trust assets ultimately pass to a charitable trust. The probate court granted the petitions and, pursuant to Probate Code section 1310, subdivision (b), directed Donald’s conservator and the trustees of the living trust to take all actions as set forth in its order granting the petitions.

This case arises under the California Environmental Quality Act. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.; “CEQA.”) The owner of an olive orchard applied to the county for a minor use permit to hold events for 200 people or less on its property. The project includes construction of several buildings. The county issued a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and granted the permit. Neighbors opposed the project, claiming that an MND is inadequate and that an environmental impact report (EIR) is required. Having exhausted administrative remedies to no avail, opponents petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Masson appeals from the judgment in favor of defendant Mid-Century Insurance Company. Plaintiff sued defendant after defendant denied her claim for damages to her home caused by sewer repair work done by a third party on the public street nearby. Finding that plaintiff’s claim for insurance coverage is not a covered loss and is excluded under the policy, we affirm the judgment below.