CA Unpub Decisions

L.J. (father) is the father of four children – a 10-year-old daughter, M.B., and three sons, seven-year-old I.J., five-year-old L.J., and four-year-old Gabriel J. His children have a half-brother, 14-year-old G.B., with whom they share a mother, L.B. (mother). Father appeals the juvenile court’s denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition, in which he requested bonding studies and that his children be returned to him with family maintenance services. Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the petition. We affirm.

Appellant Julio C. admitted wardship petition allegations (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) charging him with battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

In July 2013, Christopher H. (father) contacted the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) pleading for help with the care of his three-year-old son, Richard H., because the parents suffered from drug and alcohol addiction and sought treatment. Mother H.S. died in September 2013. Father received family maintenance services from the agency for nearly two years but continued using drugs, alcohol, and maintenance methadone. A supplemental petition was filed on July 13, 2015, alleging father could no longer care for Richard, then five years old, because of neglect due to substance abuse. The allegations were sustained in August 17, 2015, and father was granted reunification services.

On December 13, 2016, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 alleging S.H. (mother) suffered from a developmental delay, mental health issues, domestic violence, and had a prior child welfare history. Her infant son, A.H., was ordered detained. Christopher G., the father, was also named in the petition. He was not actively involved in the proceedings and is not a party to this appeal. Mother was appointed a guardian ad litem at the detention hearing on December 14, 2016. At the joint jurisdiction/disposition hearing on March 2, 2017, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true. Because of her prior history with juvenile dependency in which she refused services to reunify with two children a year older than A.H., mother was denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11).

Appellant, Kay Dodgin, challenges the trial court’s order denying her motion to reopen her case. According to appellant, the superior court clerk inadvertently closed the case due to a clerical error. Appellant argues her intent was to dismiss only the defendant erroneously sued, not the entire complaint. Appellant contends that, because she did not check all of the relevant boxes on the request for dismissal form, the court clerk should have verified that there were no other defendants before closing the case.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion. Therefore, the order will be affirmed.

Appellant Latisha Nicole Harris stands convicted of welfare fraud, a violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 10980, subdivision (c)(2) (section 10980(c)(2)). Appellant appealed her conviction and appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We sent a letter to appellant advising her of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment.

Appellant, M.H., is considered a developmentally disabled individual for purposes of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 et seq. (unless otherwise specified, all further statutory references are to this code). Pursuant to section 6500, subdivision (b)(1), “[a] person with a developmental disability may be committed to the State Department of Developmental Services for residential placement other than in a state developmental center or state-operated community facility, as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 6509, if he or she is found to be a danger to himself, herself, or others.” M.H. appeals from an order of commitment under section 6500, which was issued following a jury determination that he posed a danger to himself and/or others. However, the order was valid for only one year and expired on August 5, 2017. Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed herein, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Appellant Ryan Fromuth appeals from the denial of his motion to modify his probation. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436, we affirm.

Appellant Joseph Leroy Dixon was charged with murder and associated enhancements for the shooting death of Shannon Case. On April 15, 2014, appellant was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and special allegations of premeditation and deliberations and personal use of a firearm were found true. A separate court trial was held and a prior serious felony allegation was found true. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 75 years to life in state prison.
This appeal timely followed. We initially affirmed appellant's conviction in a nonpublished opinion dated October 11, 2017. Shortly thereafter, on October 25, 2017, appellant filed a petition for rehearing arguing the recently enacted Senate Bill No. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, §§ 1–2), effective January 1, 2018, which provides a trial court has discretion to strike certain firearm enhancements, applied retroactively to his case and warranted a remand for resentencing.

In January 2017, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant Charles Lee Jackson II pled no contest to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was placed on formal probation for three years on various terms and conditions of probation.
After defendant violated the terms of his probation, in July 2017, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea on the ground that he was not correctly advised of his sentencing range. In August 2017, the trial court heard and denied the motion. Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw his no contest plea. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted David A. Carter of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. For both convictions, the jury found true allegations Carter personally used a firearm and personally inflicted great bodily injury. For the robbery conviction, the jury also found true allegations Carter personally and intentionally used a firearm. For the assault with a deadly weapon conviction, the jury also found true allegations Carter personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon and personally inflicted great bodily injury. Additionally, Carter admitted having a prior serious felony conviction, a prior strike conviction, and a prior prison commitment conviction. The court sentenced Carter to an aggregate term of 22 years in prison. The sentence included a consecutive 10-year prison term for the firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). Carter appeals, contending the court prejudicially erred,

The People charged Kurene Mulipola with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (count 1) and battery with serious bodily injury (count 2). With respect to count 1, the People alleged that Mulipola inflicted great bodily injury. The People further alleged that Mulipola previously suffered two prison priors, a serious felony prior, and a strike prior. Before trial, Mulipola filed two Pitchess motions seeking discovery of specified relevant evidence contained in two deputy sheriffs' personnel files. In his motions, Mulipola explained that one of the deputies filed a report stating that the two deputies had interviewed Mulipola after the incident underlying the charged offenses, and indicated in the report that Mulipola had confessed to committing the crimes. In supporting declarations, Mulipola denied that he had made any statements to the deputies regarding the incident.

A jury found Leopoldo Pacuan guilty of first degree murder, in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a), while engaged in the commission of a robbery, within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). At trial, Pacuan presented a third party culpability defense, suggesting that another individual, Nelson Ocampo, had committed the murder. On appeal, Pacuan argues the trial court erred by excluding evidence regarding prior altercations Ocampo had with his wife, including one in which he allegedly threatened her with a knife. Pacuan asserts the evidence was admissible as impeachment evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 1202 and for completeness under section 356. For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude the court did not err by excluding the evidence. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant John Keovilayphone purports to appeal from an order denying his postjudgment petition to modify his sentence by vacating or reducing the $10,000 restitution fine.
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We shall dismiss the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order.