CA Unpub Decisions

Heather B. and Gregory B. appeal an order denying their petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 in the juvenile dependency case of their nephew Christopher T., Jr. (Christopher). In their petition, Heather and Gregory argued that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) failed to follow the relative placement preference under section 361.3, subdivision (d) when the Agency changed Christopher's placement after his parents' parental rights were terminated. Heather and Gregory sought an order placing Christopher at their home in Virginia. The juvenile court denied the petition on the grounds that (1) the relative placement preference did not apply and (2) even if it did apply, the court would not place Christopher with Heather and Gregory because it was not in Christopher's best interest.

A jury convicted Jose Manuel Cruz of one count each of transporting heroin and methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a) & 11379, subd. (a)) and possessing these drugs for sale (§§ 11351 & 11378). Cruz admitted that he had previously been convicted of a number of prior felonies. The court sentenced Cruz to a total term of eight years in prison. Among other things, the court imposed a criminal laboratory analysis fee of $205. (§ 11372.5, subd. (a).)

Jose Olascoaga pleaded guilty to unlawfully exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner to an occupant of a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 417.3) and exhibiting a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)). As part of a negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced Olascoaga to three years of probation and 20 days of public work service. Upon successful completion of probation, the court agreed to dismiss the felony section 417.3 charge on the condition that if Olascoaga violated any condition of probation he would subject himself to up to three years in prison and four years of parole.
Olascoaga challenges 10 probation conditions as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Additionally, he challenges three conditions as unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 (Lent). As we shall discuss, we agree with his Lent challenges but reject his constitutional challenges.

Michael Raymond Bauer appeals an order revoking and reinstating his parole following a contested parole revocation hearing. His counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. We informed Bauer of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so. Having independently reviewed the record, we affirm the order.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Brendon W. Marshall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This case concerns the murder of a 14-year-old boy during a gang-related dispute about a baseball cap. Angel Blas Burquez, Arnold Celaya and Antriel Aaron Matthews (together, defendants) were convicted of first degree murder in the death of Richard Carrillo (Richy). (Pen. Code, § 187). The jury sustained findings the defendants were active participants in a criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)); a principal discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)); the crime was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)); and Burquez and Matthews each intention

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
An information charged defendant Manuel Sue Casillas with being a felon in possession of a firearm (count 1; Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), being a felon in possession of ammunition (count 2; § 30305, subd. (a)(1)), being a felon carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle (count 3; § 25400, subd. (c)(1)), and being a felon carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle (count 4; § 25850, subd. (c)(1)). The information alleged that defendant had one strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during warrantless searches of a hotel room for which he was the registered guest as well as of his cell phone and truck (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), defendant Thomas Michael Rose III pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and admitted a prior conviction for the same offense (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11370.2, former subd. (c)). The court imposed a split sentence consisting of the lower term of 16 months for the drug possession offense plus three years for the prior drug conviction enhancement; the court suspended three years of the sentence and placed defendant on mandatory supervision by the probation department.

A jury convicted Chanel Duplessis and Dung Nguyen of unlawfully driving a vehicle (count one), unlawfully receiving an automobile (count two), and possession of burglary tools (count three). The trial court sentenced Duplessis to a term of three years and Nguyen to a term of six years.

T.A. (Mother) appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) with respect to her daughter, Skyler J. The court found jurisdiction under allegations that Skyler was at serious risk of injury due to violent altercations in her presence. On appeal, Mother challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to support jurisdiction under subdivision (a) (nonaccidental serious physical harm). We find the evidence sufficient to support the court’s finding and therefore affirm.

Fix The City, Inc. (FTC) and Los Angeles Conservancy (LAC) petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate to set aside the approval by the City of Los Angeles (the City) of a real estate development known generally as the 8150 Sunset Boulevard Mixed Use Project (Project) in order to prevent the destruction of a bank building (the Lytton Building) that the parties stipulate has historical significance—acknowledging that the November 2014 Environmental Impact Report found that the destruction of the Lytton Building “would constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA.” The trial court granted the petition in part, allowing the Project to proceed but barring the proposed destruction of the Lytton Building. The trial court denied the balance of the petition.

In this personal injury action arising out of a vehicular collision, Anil D. Gharmalkar appeals from the judgment entered in favor of respondents Jose Everett Fisher, Ismael Rodriguez, and Coastal Fumigation, Inc. A jury returned a special verdict finding that respondents’ conduct was not a substantial factor in causing harm to appellant.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. He argues that a new trial is warranted because (1) the trial court refused to permit the jury to watch a video of a vehicular crash test, (2) the trial court refused to give a requested jury instruction, and (3) respondents’ counsel committed misconduct during closing argument. We affirm.

Defendant Michael Angel Anaya appeals his conviction for two counts of attempted murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to instruct the jury on self-defense for his assault charge. Defendant also asserts that the court erroneously gave him one day less presentence credit against his prison sentence than he was due. We affirm on all grounds. The evidence did not support the self-defense instruction and the court properly computed defendant’s actual time served when calculating presentence credits.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Alvin Ray Shaw, Jr. (defendant) of second degree murder and six other offenses stemming from two drunk driving incidents. We consider whether the trial court should have instructed the jury that in lieu of finding defendant guilty of murder, it could find he committed involuntary manslaughter by reason of unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication.

A Los Angeles County jury found defendant and appellant Juan Gabriel Trinidad guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))), resisting an executive officer (count 2; § 69), and custodial possession of a weapon (count 3; § 4502, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of 25 years to life on each count, for a total of 75 years to life. He was granted 507 days of custody credits; various fines and fees were imposed.