CA Unpub Decisions

On May 3, 1999, defendant and three others robbed a jewelry and music store in Long Beach. (People v. Patterson (Sept. 25, 2001, B143582) (Patterson), review granted and opn. ordered nonpub. Dec. 19, 2001, S101726.) During the robbery, one of defendant’s accomplices shot and killed the store owner Gary Kim. (Ibid.) Two days later, defendant was arrested for an unrelated crime. (Ibid.) After being interviewed by homicide detectives, defendant confessed to participating in the murder. (Ibid.)
On July 15, 1999, the Los Angeles County District Attorney (District Attorney) charged defendant and two codefendants by information with: murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), with a special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed while defendants were engaged in the crime of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)); second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 2, 3); and conspiracy to commit robbery (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count 6).

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James Otto, Judge. Affirmed.
Kiran Prasad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________________

On May 23, 2018, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant Jimmy Robinson with attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code §§ 664/187, subd. (a)) and certain sentencing enhancements.
On March 16, 2021, defendant, pursuant to the terms of an oral plea agreement, pleaded no contest to attempted premeditated murder and admitted that he personally used a firearm in the commission of his offense (§ 12022.5). He also admitted that he caused great bodily injury resulting in paralysis or brain damage (§ 12022.7, subd. (b)).

Although the jury found charged gang enhancements not true, in order to accurately describe the trial, we have included in our factual recitation evidence of defendants’ gang connections.
1. Grape Street Crips and YNM
Both defendants are members of the Grape Street Crips gang. The gang specifically claims as its territory the Jordan Downs housing projects; there are some 200 members who live in and around Jordan Downs. Grape Street is an enemy of a number of gangs.
Defendants also are both members of a small set within Grape Street, called YNM. YNM has around 20 members, including defendant Lewis, defendant Gordon, their friends Arkeefe Sherrills and Daijah Ellsworth, and their former friend, Deanthony Bradford. Sherrills, Ellsworth and Bradford were initially charged with defendants. While the record is unclear on what happened to the charges against Sherrills and Ellsworth, Bradford ultimately entered a guilty plea and testified against defendants.

Much of the background of this case is set forth in a prior opinion, so we limit our factual review to those facts directly relevant to father’s argument. (L.B. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (April 5, 2021, A161673) [nonpub. opn.].)
The minor was born in November 2010. The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over the minor in June 2018 based in part on allegations by the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) that father was unable to regulate his aggressive emotional outbursts and to understand the impact of these outbursts on the minor. In August 2019, the juvenile court also assumed jurisdiction over the minor based on allegations in a supplemental petition that alleged that father had struck mother many times in the past, raped her about a month earlier, punched her in the head, intentionally hit her head on the car when helping her out of the car, and broke her cell phone in half and threw it at a wall.

As we explained in considering a prior appeal brought by defendant (People v. Willis (Sept. 29, 2021, A160625) [nonpub. opn.] (Willis II)), in 1989 the trial court found defendant guilty of first degree murder (§ 187), and found true a special circumstance that the murder was committed in the course of a robbery or attempted robbery (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17); 211) and allegations that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife (former § 12022, subd. (b)), that he personally and intentionally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in commission of the murder (§ 1203.075), and that he had suffered a prior felony conviction and resulting prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. This division affirmed the judgment on March 16, 1990. (People v. Willis (Mar. 16, 1990, A045985) [nonpub. opn.] (Willis I).)

In February 2021, the Public Guardian filed a petition seeking reappointment as conservator for Bobby H. After a trial in May 2021, a jury found that Bobby H. was gravely disabled due to a mental disorder. On May 17, 2021, the trial court issued the reappointment order and determined
a locked facility was the least restrictive placement for Bobby H. Bobby H. appealed.
While this appeal was pending, the Public Guardian filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In sum, the Public Guardian contends that Bobby H.’s challenge to the earlier jury verdict and the court’s locked facility determination has been rendered moot because another petition for reappointment of a conservator had been filed on February 10, 2022, and
a court trial for that petition was set for May 9, 2022.

Mota was charged with two codefendants (Javier Gomez and Gamaliel Elizalde) with the murder of Rico McIntosh (§ 187; count 1), conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a deadly weapon (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 182.5; count 3), the murder of Antonio Centron (§ 187; count 4), and the murder of Luis Perez (ibid.; count 5).
As recounted by our Supreme Court, “Briefly, the facts supporting [Mota’s] convictions are as follows: [¶] Varrio Frontero Loco (VFL) is a subgroup of the Sureño criminal street gang and is active in Contra Costa County. Three witnesses who knew Mota testified he belonged to VFL . . . .
“In 2007, Gamaliel Elizalde rose to power in VFL when another leader fled after committing a murder. Thereafter, the VFL organization began to deteriorate.

In 2009, the parcel’s then-owners deeded SLT a conservation easement over the entire parcel to prevent the loss of its scenic, natural-habitat, and open-space values that would occur if the parcel were developed. With narrow exceptions, the easement bars: (1) commercial, industrial, agricultural, or residential use of the parcel; (2) construction of new roads or structures; (3) off-road use of motor vehicles; (4) waste disposal; (5) excavation or alteration of the land; and (6) removal or destruction of trees, except as required for specified purposes. It requires the parcel’s owners, before undertaking any restoration activity, to secure SLT’s written approval of a vegetation-management plan.
In 2013, the Thompsons acquired the parcel. They also acquired an adjacent parcel, held by a limited liability corporation which they formed, Henstooth Ranch LLC (Henstooth), on which they planned to build a house.

Gary LaMusga is an insurance and financial advisor who owns his own business. Karin Peterson, his former spouse, worked as a hairdresser for 46 years. In the past decade, Peterson suffered from various health problems, including neck injuries and carpal tunnel syndrome in her hands. These health issues affected her ability to continue working.
In 2015, Peterson and LaMusga entered into a marital settlement agreement, resolving various issues in their marital dissolution, including spousal support. As part of their agreement, LaMusga agreed to pay Peterson $7,200.00 per month in spousal support. In October of 2016, LaMusga’s support obligation was reduced to $6,450 per month.
In 2018, LaMusga applied to the court for a further reduction in his spousal support obligations, claiming that certain changed circumstances in his life impaired his ability to continue paying support at the adjusted 2016 level.

In 2016, a jury convicted defendant Jose Velasquez of a number of sexual assault crimes, including forcible rape and forcible sodomy, committed during a 2000 residential burglary and assault. The jury also found true several enhancement allegations.
In an unpublished opinion (People v. Velasquez (Oct. 18, 2018) A149205 [nonpub. opn.] ), we ruled Proposition 57 applied retroactively to defendant and he was entitled to a juvenile transfer hearing. We therefore conditionally reversed his convictions and remanded for the trial court to hold a transfer hearing. In that appeal, we also rejected defendant’s claim that his state and federal speedy trial rights had been violated because the Contra Costa District Attorney waited to serve the 2005 warrant for his arrest until 2014, when defendant completed a Washington State prison sentence for a 2001 rape in that state.

Defendant Michael France pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and admitted one allegation that he had served a prior prison term. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed two strikes and two prior prison term allegations. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced France to four years in prison, consisting of three years for the gun charge and one year for the enhancement, but suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on probation for three years. When the trial court later found that France had violated the terms of his probation, it ordered France to serve the previously suspended sentence.

The initial petition filed in this matter pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300 stated that there was no known Indian ancestry based on H.M.’s statements to the social worker and forms H.M. had completed. Based on this evidence, the jurisdictional and dispositional order found that ICWA did not apply. Despite having contact with various relatives during the course of the dependency proceedings, the Department made no further inquiry regarding Indian ancestry prior to the Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26 hearing. After the court terminated H.M.’s parental rights, this timely appeal ensued. After H.M. filed her opening brief, the parties jointly moved for summary reversal.

L.M., along with two half-siblings, was taken into protective custody by the Department of Family and Children’s Services in June 2019. He was two years old and living with an aunt and uncle after his mother dropped out of residential drug treatment with the children. Her continued methamphetamine use and termination of treatment prompted the Department to take custody of the children.
The Department filed a dependency petition. The petition alleged that L.M.’s mother was unable to care for him and that the whereabouts of his father were unknown. Several days after the initial detention hearing, L.M.’s father learned of the proceedings and contacted the assigned social worker.
The father had been incarcerated and had seen L.M. on only two occasions—once shortly after birth and again around L.M.’s first birthday. He expressed interest in obtaining custody of L.M. The social worker arranged for a visit at a park. L.M. seemed to enjoy it and was comfortable around his father.

On August 25, 2020, appellant filed a petition in California to determine a parental relationship with the child, who was two years old. In a supporting declaration, appellant indicated that the child alternately resided in New Mexico and California as follows: (1) in New Mexico with appellant and respondent from birth in July 2018, to October 2018; (2) in Morgan Hill, California with appellant and respondent from October 2018, to March 2019; (3) in New Mexico with respondent from March 2019, to September 2019; and (4) in Morgan Hill, California with appellant and respondent from September 2019, “to present.” Appellant indicated that a “domestic violence restraining/protective order[]” from Santa Clara County had been in effect until August 24, 2020.