CA Unpub Decisions

Mother D.J. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She argues the juvenile court erred in finding an insufficient bond based on hearsay and lay opinion in the report filed by the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA). We will affirm.

Appellant Andrew C., father of the minors A.C. and S.C., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) He contends the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption applied and that the juvenile court failed to properly consider the minors’ wishes. We shall affirm.

While K. Y. was away on an extended trip, defendant Trisha Marie Bates moved into K. Y.’s house with her family, stripped it bare, and vandalized the property, causing over $30,000 in damage. Defendant pled no contest to first degree burglary in exchange for dismissal of several remaining counts and one chance at completing a residential treatment program. According to the terms of the plea agreement, if defendant successfully completed the residential treatment program, she would receive probation; if she failed to complete the program, she could be sentenced to the maximum term of six years. Defendant was terminated from the treatment program before completion, and the court sentenced her to six years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that her right to due process was violated because no evidence shows that she was properly informed of her obligations in the treatment program or that she willfully violated the treatment program’s rules to justify her terminati

Following a joint trial, a jury found defendants Ashleigh Smith and Terry Scott guilty of second degree murder and assault resulting in the death of a child. The trial court sentenced the pair to state prison for an indeterminate term of 25 years to life on the latter count, staying the former.
Defendant Smith argues the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions, there was instructional error with respect to her murder conviction, and the trial court erred in admitting evidence of past abuse. Defendant Scott contends that the statute proscribing an assault that results in the death of a child (Pen. Code, § 273ab) is not constitutional, and the pattern instruction describing the necessary intent for the offense is accordingly defective. We shall reverse defendant Smith’s conviction for second degree murder, and otherwise affirm.

A jury found defendant Ashraf Abduelah Alnassiry guilty of interfering with custodial rights. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow him to call a witness via a two-way video conferencing system. The witness lived in Yemen and could not obtain a visa to attend trial. Finding no error, we affirm.

Defendant Arnold Brown was convicted of stalking an ex-girlfriend (Pen. Code, § 646.9), first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) of her home with intent to commit or continue to commit the crime of stalking, and two counts of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)). On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing a different ex-girlfriend to testify about prior acts of domestic violence under Evidence Code sections 1109 and 1101. (Statutory section references that follow are to the Evidence Code, unless otherwise stated.) Defendant also challenges the trial court’s failure to instruct sua sponte with CALCRIM No. 251 that the specific intent crimes of burglary and stalking required concurrence of act and specific intent. Finally, defendant complains the former victim testified defendant had “four[] strike[s]” and faced a potential life sentence, and the court’s admonition to the jury to disregard the testimony failed to cure the prejudice. We af

This appeal raises one issue: whether defendant Robert Kenneth Carver was entitled to have his felony conviction for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. In light of the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion in People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page), we conclude he is entitled to refile his petition under Proposition 47 so that he may have the opportunity to prove he was sentenced for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle and that the vehicle in question was valued under the $950 threshold. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment without prejudice to allow defendant to refile his petition.

Paul A. Bridges, a California state prisoner, appeals the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice his in propria persona complaint for legal malpractice against his former attorney, respondent Louisa Pensanti. Appellant contends the court exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing his complaint after he had voluntarily dismissed it pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581. We affirm.

In this dependency appeal, Frank P. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s findings, made at the six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)) , that father was provided reasonable reunification services and was not entitled to a continuance of the hearing. We find no error, and thus we affirm.

Charles Small (defendant) stands convicted of raping and orally copulating his girlfriend’s 16-year-old daughter. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony that the victim’s somewhat counterintuitive behavior during and after the sexual assault was “not inconsistent” with that of a person who had, in fact, been subject to an unwanted sexual assault. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion, and affirm.

Frankie Calanche Lopez (defendant) saw an easy mark in a 59-year-old man riding his bicycle through a park. What he did not count on was that the man was a former Olympian who fought back when defendant punched him and picked up the man’s cell phone that fell to the ground during the ensuring fistfight. A jury convicted defendant of robbery. On appeal, he argues that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser included crime of theft. We disagree, and affirm.

Norman Hirscher (defendant) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to be resentenced under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126). We conclude there was no error, and affirm.

A jury convicted appellant Lamont Edward Gillon on one count of murder and two counts of robbery, and it found the robberies were gang-related offenses. On appeal, he contends there was insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancements. Appellant further contends that the matter should be remanded for the trial court to correct several sentencing errors, and for the court to exercise its discretion under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 620) on whether to strike the firearm enhancements imposed. For the reasons stated below, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the gang enhancements, and that remand is warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Gus Adams appeals from his judgment of conviction of first degree residential robbery and burglary. His only challenge is to the one-year prior prison term enhancement based on his earlier conviction of petty theft with priors. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) The court reduced the theft conviction to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 before sentencing appellant in this case. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a).) Appellant argues, and respondent concedes, that so reduced the theft conviction that it could no longer support the enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b). We agree and modify the judgment accordingly.