CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Moises Aaron Tejeda pleaded no contest to second degree murder with a firearm enhancement and to shooting at an occupied vehicle in exchange for a total prison term of 43 years to life and the dismissal of other charges against him. He was 22 and 23 years old at the time of his crimes. On appeal, he requests a limited remand for the purpose of making a record of factors relevant to his eventual youth offender parole hearing. The Attorney General concedes that remand is appropriate to allow the trial court to assess whether defendant has been given the opportunity to make the necessary record.

Defendant Fabian Marcus Romero appeals from his judgment of conviction after we remanded this case for resentencing. Defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on this own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and we have not received written argument from defendant.
Pursuant to Wende, we have reviewed the entire record and find that there is no arguable issue on appeal. We affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Steven James Hanway of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14. Defendant challenges his conviction, arguing that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct violating his right to due process by invading the attorney-client privilege, disparaging his attorney, and impeaching him with pre-arrest statements and conduct. Finding no prejudicial error, we will affirm the judgment.

J.F. (mother) and J.H. (father) (parents) appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating their parental rights to H.H. and R.H. (the minors), and imposing a permanent restraining order enjoining parents from having contact with minors’ caregiver and members of her household. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.)
Parents challenge the court’s decision to not apply the section 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v) sibling bond exception, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the issuance of a restraining order. We affirm.

Defendant Robert Hall appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. The People concede the trial court denied the petition under the authority of the wrong statute, and they agree the matter should be remanded for reconsideration of the petition. We agree, reverse the order, and remand.

Defendant Robert Hall appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. The People concede the trial court denied the petition under the authority of the wrong statute, and they agree the matter should be remanded for reconsideration of the petition. We agree, reverse the order, and remand.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss criminal charges as a sanction for governmental misconduct. Following an in-prison incident, defendant Tony Curtis was charged by amended information with assault with a deadly weapon by a prisoner and possession or manufacture of a weapon by a prisoner. The amended information further alleged defendant had four prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. Prior to the pretrial conference and preliminary hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 807 (Faretta). Defendant thereafter filed a motion to disqualify the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. Several weeks later, defendant filed a motion seeking the return of his legal property, which had been confiscated by prison officials.

Defendant filed a single notice of appeal for both cases, challenging the sentence or other matters not affecting the validity of the plea. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Larry Darnell Shyne is serving 50 years to life for first degree murder with a firearm enhancement after being convicted, appealing, and being resentenced for murdering a woman while attempting to rob her in 2008. He now appeals a second time, seeking a remand so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion under the newly enacted Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). The People concur that Senate Bill No. 620 is retroactive to this case. We remand so the trial court can consider whether to strike the Penal Code section 12022.53 firearm enhancement. We also order the abstract of judgment corrected to reflect that defendant was convicted and sentenced on count 3 for attempted robbery.

Defendant and appellant Alphonso Pacheco failed to keep his probation officer informed of his place of residence and failed to report to probation as directed for approximately four months in 2017. As a result, his mandatory supervision was terminated and his previously suspended three-year sentence was imposed. Defendant appeals from the trial court’s finding he violated the terms of his mandatory supervision and the court’s order terminating his supervision. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

On September 2, 2016, a first amended information charged defendant and appellant Reynaldo Hernandez-Nevarez with sodomy or intercourse with a child 10 years of age or younger under Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (a) (counts 1, 3); oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years of age or younger under section 288.7, subdivision (b) (counts 2, 4); aggravated sexual assault by sodomy on a child under 14 years of age under section 269, subdivision (a)(3) (counts 5, 8, 11); aggravated sexual assault on a child under 14 by oral copulation under section 269, subdivision (a)(5) (counts 6, 9, 12); and continuous sexual abuse of a child under section 288.5, subdivision (a) (count 14) .

Defendant and appellant Rigoberto Albor arranged to meet Rudy D. on a street in Moreno Valley to sell him methamphetamine. When they arrived, Rudy gave defendant the money and defendant handed him the drugs. Rudy was upset about the amount of drugs and they got into a dispute. Defendant pulled a gun on Rudy and shot him in the chest. Prior to defendant’s trial, he called his brother from jail and advised him to contact Rudy to tell him to tell the “truth” when he testified at defendant’s trial.

In February 2015, under the terms of his membership agreement with the Bighorn Golf Club (Club), Robert L. King resigned from the Club and added his name to the Club's resale list with the intent to fully relinquish his membership once it was purchased. Later that year, the Club imposed an assessment of $75,000 on each club member, including King, to finance the construction of a new clubhouse. King objected to the assessment and eventually brought suit against the Club, one of its developers, Bighorn Development, LLC (Bighorn), and Bighorn's controlling member, R.D. Hubbard, alleging the assessment was unlawful. King then moved to disqualify the defendants' joint counsel, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP (Cox Castle), based on his assertion that Cox Castle could not simultaneously represent the Club and Bighorn, whose interests King contended were adverse. The trial court denied the motion, concluding King lacked standing to seek disqualification of Cox Castle. We agree an

Victoria W. (Mother) and Ricky C. (Father) appeal from juvenile court orders denying Mother's petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to place their minor daughter, T.W., in Mother's care and terminating their parental rights under section 366.26. Mother argues she established grounds for relief under section 388, and the court erred in determining the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply. Father joins Mother's arguments. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) maintains the record does not show any abuse of judicial discretion or lack of substantial evidence. We agree, and affirm the orders.