CA Unpub Decisions

J.A. (Father) appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights to his biological daughter, I.V. (Minor). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) He contends the Sonoma County Social Services Department (the Department) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA); see also Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.) We shall conditionally reverse the order and remand the matter for further inquiry into Minor’s Indian status.

Ralph Wilson appeals from a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement. His appointed counsel asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Wilson did not file a supplemental brief, and our review of the record discloses no arguable issues.
We affirm.

Maribec Natividad unsuccessfully sought modification of her mortgage loan from Bank of America, N.A. (BANA). When foreclosure proceedings were initiated, she filed suit, alleging tort claims for negligence in the handling of her modification applications and violation of the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et seq.). She argues the trial court erred in dismissing her claims on demurrer. We affirm.

Mohammad Aleqabi appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of possession of marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359.) He contends (1) the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury as to his defense to the charges; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not object to certain statements in the prosecutor’s closing argument or to the prosecutor’s elicitation of opinion testimony from police officers; and (3) the prosecutor impermissibly vouched for the police officers. We will affirm the judgment.

The biological father in this juvenile dependency proceeding challenges the juvenile court’s order giving the child’s stepfather presumed parent status under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d). He also challenges a finding under Family Code section 7612, subdivision (c) that it would be detrimental to the child to recognize only two of the parents. As we will explain, we conclude that the finding of detriment if only two parents are recognized is not supported by substantial evidence. We will therefore reverse the order that made both the father and the stepfather presumed parents, and remand the matter to allow the juvenile court to determine which of the conflicting presumptions of parentage should control under these circumstances. (Fam. Code, § 7612, subd. (b). Unspecified statutory references are to the Family Code.)

Linda Yi-Tai Shao appeals the trial court’s order that she disclose her residence address to her ex-husband, Tsan-Kuen Wang, who is the father of her minor daughter, L. On appeal, Shao argues that she should not have been ordered to provide her address, because the disclosure violates her constitutional right to privacy. She also argues that Wang poses a danger to her, and that the judge was biased against her.

In the underlying action in quo warranto against the City of San Jose (City), the San Jose Police Officers’ Association (SJPOA) challenged the validity of Measure B, a voter-approved amendment to the City Charter. Supporters of Measure B—Peter Constant, the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association (SVTA), and Steven Haug (collectively, appellants)—sought unsuccessfully to intervene in its defense. The suit was resolved by way of a stipulated judgment invalidating Measure B. Appellants appealed from the stipulated judgment and the order denying their motion to intervene.
In July 2016, this court stayed enforcement of the stipulated judgment pending the resolution of this appeal. Since that time, City voters approved Measure F, which superseded Measure B.
According to appellants, at issue on appeal is whether a city may stipulate to the judicial invalidation of a voter-enacted charter amendment.

A jury convicted defendant Mario Augusto Samayoa of various crimes for sexually abusing four girls over a nearly 20-year period. Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions on two of the charges because the victim’s trial testimony was inconsistent. He contends his convictions on two other charges should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence regarding use of force, and because the jury should have been instructed with a specialized definition of the term “force.” He asserts the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on several lesser included offenses. And he asks that the abstract of judgment be amended to remove duplicate entries of fines and fees. We find no prejudicial error and will affirm the judgment.

S.A. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s August 2017 order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; all references to this code unless otherwise noted) to her daughter, F.I. (born in September 2007). Mother raises issues that were not raised in the juvenile court and which are generally not cognizable on appeal from an order terminating parental rights. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.

After voluntarily quitting his job, George Aguayo unsuccessfully sought to have his spousal support obligations reduced based on his claimed lack of income and inability to work. He appeals from the order denying his spousal support modification request, arguing the trial court erred by: (1) refusing to consider supplemental evidence he filed the day before the hearing on his request; (2) refusing to grant a continuance to allow his ex-wife, Cheryl Aguayo, the opportunity to review and respond to the supplemental evidence; (3) failing to evaluate each of the factors specified in Family Code section 4320 ; and (4) denying the modification request despite his testimony that he has a medical disability which prevents him from working. George also contends the court abused its discretion when it denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration of its decision to disregard his late-filed supplemental evidence. We find no error and affirm the challenged order.

A jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in this slip-and-fall case against defendant BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. (BJ’s). Plaintiff Samar Malouf appealed from the judgment, arguing the court committed prejudicial evidentiary errors. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

The juvenile court found Dylan S. violated the terms and conditions of his probation by testing positive for illicit substances and by failing to attend counseling, report to probation, and submit to drug testing as ordered by the court. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel identified potential issues to assist us in our independent review. We provided Dylan 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf; he did not do so.
We have examined the entire record and appointed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief and have found no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

This matter comes to us following a remand for resentencing based on People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 (Chiu). A jury had convicted Ivan Castaneda and Jesus Valdivia Cruz of the first degree murder of Jose Miguel Quiroz (count 1) and the attempted murder of David Quiroz (count 2). The jury also had convicted Castaneda and Cruz each of one count of street terrorism under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a) (count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, and as against both Castaneda and Cruz, the jury found true enhancements alleged under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) and enhancements alleged under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1).

Appointed counsel for defendant German Alejandro Esquer asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.