CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant and appellant Tyries Keimon Brooks guilty on one count of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 1), one count of shooting from a motor vehicle (§ 26100, subd. (c); count 2), one count of active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3), and one count of carrying a loaded firearm by an active participant in a criminal street gang (§ 25850, subds. (a), (c)(3); count 4). With respect to counts 1, 2, and 4, the jury found true allegations that Brooks committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). With respect to counts 1 and 2, the jury found true allegations that Brooks personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53). The jury acquitted Brooks of a fifth charged count, possessing a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1)).

Two-month-old J.P.'s foot was severely burned during a bath while in her father's (Father) care and follow-up examinations revealed the presence of healing fractures to her ribs and legs. The juvenile court declared J.P. a dependent, placed her in the care of her maternal grandmother, ordered reunification services, and ordered Father's visits be supervised.
At the six-month review hearing, the court determined J.P. was safe with her mother (Mother) and terminated its jurisdiction. In the associated "exit" order, the court awarded sole physical custody to Mother and ordered that Father have supervised visitation, a minimum of twice per week for a minimum of two hours each visit. In addition, the court awarded joint legal custody to both parents, but placed restrictions on Father's access to certain information regarding J.P.'s daycare and medical appointments.

A jury found defendant Marcos Hudson guilty of possession of unlawful pornographic material depicting minors. (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced Hudson to state prison for a determinate term of three years.
Hudson appeals. His appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not raised any specific issues. Hudson's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Hudson the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and he has done so. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.

Jeremy John Foster appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss his civil commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). Foster's commitment began after he completed serving his prison sentence for a felony theft offense. In late 2016 Foster successfully petitioned to have his underlying offense redesignated as a misdemeanor pursuant to The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Penal Code section 1170.18, which became effective after the voters approved Proposition 47 in 2014. Foster's "motion to dismiss" argued that the redesignation of his original offense as a misdemeanor means that he no longer meets the criteria for a commitment as an MDO, and, therefore, he was entitled to be released.
On appeal, Foster renews his argument. This court recently considered and rejected an identical argument in People v. Goodrich (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 699 (Goodrich). We see no reason to depart from the reasoning in Goodrich.

Defendant Scott Robert Hoffman was charged with—and ultimately convicted of—battery on a peace officer, San Diego County Sheriff's Deputy James Givens, and resisting arrest. At trial, Deputy Givens testified that while he was standing at the door to Hoffman's mobile home, without provocation Hoffman punched him; Givens tackled him in response. Hoffman told a different story. He testified that the deputy's attack was not precipitated by a punch but solely by an obscenity. No one else saw—or was in the proper vantage point to see—Hoffman throw an initial punch. While others witnessed the later portion of the scuffle, only Hoffman and Givens could testify as to its genesis. Thus, the trial turned on a battle of credibility: Was Hoffman or Givens telling the truth?

In case number SCD258148, defendant John Anthony Lopez pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). In connection with the plea, defendant admitted the allegations that he was armed with a firearm in committing the crime, that he had a prior drug conviction, and that he had a prior conviction that qualified as a strike. While defendant was awaiting trial, he was arrested in case No. SCD261503. In this case, defendant also pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of a firearm by a felon, and admitted the strike allegations. On appeal, defendant argues the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because he alleges his pleas were not knowing and voluntary.

Ryan Hawblitzel, an autistic adult, was severely injured when his family's dog (the Dog) bit his face. When the Dog was adopted by Hawblitzel's parents just a month earlier, no one told them it had severely bitten someone else two weeks earlier.
Hawblitzel sued Labradors and Friends Dog Rescue Group, Inc. (Labradors and Friends), from whom his family obtained the Dog, and also the County of San Diego (County). Against the County, Hawblitzel alleged that a Department of Animal Services (Animal Services) employee, Lori Brown, knew the Dog was a "potentially dangerous and/or a vicious dog"—but negligently failed to warn Hawblitzel. The trial court sustained the County's demurrer, determining Hawblitzel failed to allege facts creating a "special relationship" between himself and Brown and, therefore, Brown had no duty to warn. Hawblitzel appeals from the resulting judgment dismissing the County. We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua Lopez Vasquez has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Stanley John Leal pleaded no contest to felony vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced him to a two-year state prison term.
Defendant now contends the trial court violated his state constitutional right to counsel by removing his appointed counsel without providing him notice or an opportunity to be heard. We conclude that although the substitution of counsel violated Code of Civil Procedure section 284, the error was harmless and did not violate the state constitutional right to counsel. We will affirm the judgment.

James J. Bryan appeals from the trial court’s decision to dismiss his petition contesting the 2000 Joseph Herb O’Brien Revocable Trust without leave amend. Bryan is the brother of the deceased, Joseph O’Brien. Bryan argues the trial court erred by: (1) granting respondents’ motions for judgment on the pleadings on grounds that did not appear on the face of his petition or any judicially noticeable document; (2) not giving reasons or citing legal authority for dismissing his second through sixth grounds for challenging the trust; and (3) not granting him leave to amend. Bryan has failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the trial court. Therefore, we affirm.

Video surveillance recorded an image of defendant Trevor Miguel Taylor choking his former girlfriend while she played a slot machine in a casino. He was convicted by jury of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) ), and the jury found true a special allegation he personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found true that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) that constituted strikes under the three strikes law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) After dismissing both strikes (§ 1385), the court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate term of 19 years in state prison.

In this writ proceeding, mother Karrie H. challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services as to her daughter, A.C., and setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. We find no error and deny the petition.

In this dependency case, mother T.B. appeals from the order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to reinstate family reunification services and terminating parental rights as to her son A.R. We affirm the order.

After pseudonymous Internet commenters posted on social media that Jeff Nelson practices “bestiality and paedophilia [sic] and incest,” has “mouth sores,” and sells food that causes “mouth herpes,” he and his company VegSource Interactive (collectively, Nelson) sued for defamation. To discover the identity of the commenters, one of whom posted under the pseudonym Chantelle Robin, Nelson served subpoenas on Google, Tumblr, YouTube, and Twitter, requesting potentially identifying information, including the commenters’ IP addresses. Before those companies responded to the subpoenas, however, they notified Robin, who filed a motion to quash the subpoenas. The trial court granted the motion to quash.
Nelson filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion to quash and to enter a new order denying the motion.