CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Manuel Trejo pleaded guilty to, among other things, second degree robbery and a firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). He was sentenced as a second striker, and the trial court imposed a sentence on the enhancement. Trejo appealed, contending only that the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion when denying his Romero motion. In an opinion filed September 11, 2017, we rejected that contention and affirmed the conviction. Trejo petitioned for review of our decision and also applied for leave to amend his petition to raise newly enacted Senate Bill No. 620, which was to take effect January 1, 2018 and which gives trial courts the discretion to strike certain firearm enhancements. The Supreme Court granted Trejo’s application and petition for review and transferred the matter to this court “with directions to vacate [our] decision and reconsider the cause in light of S.B. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682).”

Defendant Karen Wargo challenges a civil harassment restraining order issued against her, contending it is not supported by substantial evidence. Because she has not provided a sufficient record to enable our review of this claim, we must affirm.

Objector Warren A. Rhodes, the former personal representative of decedent’s estate, appeals from an order imposing a surcharge of $53,005, suspending him as personal representative, and appointing petitioner Jone Harris as successor personal representative. Objector contends the probate court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order. We affirm.

Defendants Willie Torrence and Lawrence Denard were convicted of, among other things, one count of first degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, each with associated firearms enhancements, arising out of a gang-related drive-by shooting. On appeal, and in related habeas corpus petitions, defendants asserted numerous errors and violations of their constitutional rights. In our initial opinion, we found no error with respect to the vast majority of their contentions. To the extent there were errors in the court’s evidentiary rulings, arising largely from subsequent changes in decisional law, we found no prejudice in light of the overwhelming admissible evidence of defendants’ guilt both as to the offenses charged and the gang enhancements.

The dispute giving rise to this appeal has its origins in an application by Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (Pacific Bell) to install a one-half inch fiber optic cable across three existing utility poles in the City of Livermore (City). The City required Pacific Bell to place the new cable underground or, alternatively, pay a fee equivalent to the estimated cost of placing the cable underground as a condition of installing it on the existing poles. Pacific Bell unsuccessfully sought a writ of mandate to overturn the City’s determination.

Appellant A.R. (father) challenges a juvenile court restraining order protecting his two-year-old daughter, D.R. (the child). He claims that the juvenile court erred in granting the child’s request for a restraining order against him because she was already adequately protected by criminal protective orders protecting the child’s mother and by the juvenile court’s dispositional order requiring supervised visitation. We reject his claim and affirm the court’s order.

After moving unsuccessfully to withdraw his guilty plea through substitute counsel, Ryan Thomas Gardner was sentenced according to the terms of a negotiated disposition. He argues the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) when he indicated through his original counsel the desire to withdraw his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no prejudice from the error, we will affirm the judgment.

The minor, A.R., appeals from a dispositional order following his admission of having possessed a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610) and live ammunition (§ 29650). The minor contends that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was found in an open safe in the backyard at his mother’s residence during a probation search regarding his brother, D.R. The minor also argues that the court erred in denying a Harvey/Madden objection to a police officer’s testimony regarding the residence being subject to search due to D.R.’s probation status.
For reasons that we will explain, we will affirm the dispositional order.

The minor, S.G., and Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) appeal from a July 2017 juvenile court order extending reunification services to mother, J.G., at a hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 387. The 24-month review hearing was scheduled for November 2017 but was continued into January 2018, and SSA was advocating before the juvenile court that the hearing be continued yet another 60 days to coincide with a period of trial custody for mother.
Appellants argue the juvenile court was statutorily barred from offering mother further reunification services at the section 387 hearing because mother had already been provided with 18 months of services, and she did not meet the criteria for more services under section 366.22, subdivision (b), therefore, the court should have scheduled a permanency plan hearing under section 366.26. They further argue the court lacked discretion to continue the hearing under section 352.

A jury found defendant guilty of using force to resist an executive officer in the performance of his duty (Pen. Code, § 69; count 1) and two misdemeanors, delaying a peace officer in the performance of his duty (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2) and possession of paraphernalia for injecting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a); count 3). Defendant admitted having served two prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) One of the prior strike conviction allegations (§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)) was dismissed on the prosecutor’s motion and the other was stricken by the court pursuant to section 1385. The court also struck the state prison prior enhancements for sentencing purposes.
The court sentenced defendant to two years in state prison on count 1. On count 2, the court sentenced defendant to six months in county jail, but stayed the sentence pursuant to section 654. Lastly, the court ordered defendant to serve 30 days on count 3.

M.H. (mother) and K.K. (father) have two young children together—Z.K., who was 16 months at the time of detention and is now just over four years old, and W.K., who was born during Z.K.’s dependency. Mother also has three children from a previous relationship. Mother’s long and severe history of prescription narcotic and opiate abuse put her children at risk of harm, and father compounded that risk by enabling her and refusing to take responsibility for his own issues with alcohol. In September 2017, the juvenile court terminated their parental rights over Z.K. and selected adoption as her permanent plan. The court also declared mother’s oldest child, K.E. (who is now 13 years old), a dependent and removed her from mother with the provision of family reunification services.

Plaintiff and appellant Michael Peters appeals the dismissal of his quiet title action after a default prove-up hearing. Peters filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief and to quiet title pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 761.020 against defendant and respondent New Century Mortgage Corporation (New Century) with whom Peters had executed a promissory note and deed of trust in exchange for a loan to purchase property in Moreno Valley.
Peters presents the following issues on appeal: (1) whether a borrower has legal standing to contest a lender’s right to assert a lien against real property, such as a mortgage, and maintain a quiet title action; and (2) whether the facts set forth in the complaint, and as established by the evidence at the prove-up hearing, are sufficient to establish a cause of action to quiet title.

Plaintiff and appellant Cassandra Leon appeals the grant of defendant and respondent Southern California Permanente Medical Group’s (SCPMG) special motion to strike her complaint (SLAPP ) filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Leon filed a lawsuit against her employer Stratham Fund Six in Leon v. Stratham Fund Six, Ltd. (as Lincoln Apartments) et.al, Riverside Superior Court No. RIC 1105646 (civil action) for wrongful termination. Leon had a complicated pregnancy and missed work, which allegedly resulted in her being fired. Prior to the trial in the civil action, Leon’s counsel served a subpoena on her treating physician Dr. Alia Shbeeb.

Plaintiff and appellant John Yablonsky was found guilty of the first degree murder of Rita Cobb. In September 1985, Cobb was discovered nude and strangled by a hanger in her bedroom. A DNA sample taken from her vagina was matched to Yablonsky’s DNA in 2009. Yablonsky was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Yablonsky’s conviction was affirmed on appeal by this court in 2013. (People v. Yablonsky (Dec. 4, 2013, E055840) [nonpub. opn.] [2013 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 8800].) Review was denied by the California Supreme Court in 2014. Yablonsky’s habeas corpus petitions filed in the state courts attacking his conviction were unsuccessful and he remained incarcerated.