CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Mark Anthony Little of first degree murder of his ex-girlfriend Deborah Ann Treptor. In addition, with respect to five separate prior acts of domestic violence, Little was convicted of two counts of corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant, two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, misdemeanor battery and making criminal threats.

Defendants and appellants, Alonzo Harris and Floyd Nelson, appeal their convictions for ch arges arising out of a series of robberies, attempted robberies and associated crimes. The prosecution’s theory was that defendant Harris committed robberies from October to December 2007 with Glenn Boldware until Boldware was shot and killed by Los Angeles police officers on January 4, 2008. Thereafter, Harris carried out a few robberies by himself (and once with an unidentified accomplice), before being joined by defendant Nelson for the last robbery attempt on July 11, 2008, a crime which immediately led to their arrest.

K.S. (Mother) appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders in a juvenile dependency case concerning her child, S.G. Mother asserts the juvenile court erred in failing to comply with notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) and failing to obtain Mother’s personal waiver of trial rights at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. We agree with Mother the juvenile court erred, but as to several jurisdictional findings, we conclude the due process violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, we reverse and remand for compliance with ICWA, reverse certain jurisdictional findings, and otherwise conditionally affirm.

K.S. (Mother), the mother of D.C. and L.C., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the juvenile court erred because (1) there was no substantial evidence D.C., a child over age 12, consented to adoption; (2) the court’s denial of a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing was an abuse of discretion; (3) the court failed to ascertain the wishes of D.C. and L.C. with respect to their placement; and (4) the court’s denial of Mother’s section 388 petition was an abuse of discretion. We reject each of these contentions and affirm.

Samir G. was adjudged a ward of the court, committed to a rehabilitation program and placed on probation after he admitted an allegation that he resisted a peace officer, and the juvenile court found true an allegation that he committed assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. On appeal, Samir challenges as facially overbroad the condition of his probation that prohibits him from changing residence without prior approval of the probation department. We conclude that Samir forfeited his challenge by failing to raise it below, and we shall affirm.

Defendant William Addam Dunn appeals from a judgment of conviction after pleading no contest to charges of second degree burglary, possession of burglary tools, and vandalism. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable appellate issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440–441.) We therefore provide a summary of the facts and procedural history of the case, describe the convictions and the punishment imposed, and affirm the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)

A jury convicted Joseph Daniel Miller as charged of one count of transporting methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (id., § 11378), and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (id., § 11364, subd. (a)). After Miller admitted the allegation of three prior prison convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), the trial court sentenced him to a total of four years six months in jail.
Miller contends the prosecutor committed error in closing argument by equating the beyond reasonable doubt standard with the jury’s experience and common sense and with simple reasonableness. Although a few statements in the prosecutor’s closing argument did misstate the law when viewed in isolation, we conclude there was no prosecutorial error because in the context of the entire argument and the jury instructions it was not reasonably likely the jury understood or applied the statements in an errone

On June 3, 2016, appellant Emilio Rudy Gonzales was charged in a criminal complaint with elder abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1)). On December 5, 2016, pursuant to sections 1370 and 1370.1, the court ordered Gonzales committed to the Department of State Hospitals for a maximum term of three years.
On appeal, Gonzales contends the court erred when it failed to conduct a Marsden hearing. We find merit to this contention and remand for further proceedings.

This second appeal in this case by defendant and appellant, Ricardo Camarillo, follows this court’s conditional reversal of the judgment in People v. Camarillo (Feb. 23, 2017, E068457) [nonpub. opn.] (Camarillo I), and remand with instructions for the trial court to conduct a new Pitchess in camera hearing.

On January 24, 2005, defendant and respondent, Juan Pablo Munoz Marquez, pled guilty to felony possession of cocaine (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or greater (count 3; Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)). On December 9, 2016, defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5, which the court granted. On appeal, the People contend the court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s motion. We reverse.

Defendants Jacques Powers and Angeletta Powers (together, defendants) own Lot 85 in the Valley View Park Subdivision (the Subdivision). Lot 85 is adjacent to real property owned by plaintiff Valley View Park Mutual Water Company (Valley View). Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of Valley View that prevents defendants from using a dirt road (the Road) on Valley View's land to access defendants' undeveloped real property. Defendants contend the judgment should be reversed, asserting: (1) Valley View's complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches; (2) Valley View does not own the Road, but if it does own the Road, defendants have an easement by prescription or necessity; (3) certain documents entitle them to use the Road; and (4) the judgment constitutes an unconstitutional taking of their land. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant Mario Ponce was charged with conspiracy to commit murder (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a)) and first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), with the special-circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the commission of a kidnapping (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(B)). The prosecution theory was that Ponce conspired in 2007 to murder Jose Fierro in revenge for his killing of Ponce's friend in 2005 during a cartel-related drug deal gone bad. The plan was bungled, and Jose's brother, Armando, was inadvertently kidnapped, then murdered.

Daniel James Ennis pleaded guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle with a prior felony vehicle theft, unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle with a prior felony vehicle theft, possession of burglary tools, and petty theft. A jury found Ennis guilty of robbery, and he admitted three prison priors. The trial court sentenced Ennis to six years in state prison, consisting of three years for the robbery plus three consecutive years for the prison priors. The court also stayed a concurrent sentence of three years for receiving a stolen vehicle, imposed a three-year concurrent sentence for unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle, and imposed a sentence of 230 days for possession of burglary tools and petty theft, with 230 days credit for time served.

Henderson and Ranasinghe and Kelly Ranasinghe for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this case of apparent first impression in California, we hold that the Imperial County Department of Social Services (Department) failed to meet its burden under People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 (Kelly) of showing that testing hair for marijuana and methamphetamine has gained general acceptance in the scientific community. We affirm, however, because on this record—which also contains unchallenged urine drug tests—the error was harmless.