CA Unpub Decisions

Z.R. (mother) appeals from jurisdiction and disposition orders entered after the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition and declared mother’s newborn girl, P.R., a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b) & (g).) Mother contends that the jurisdiction and disposition findings are not supported by the evidence. We affirm.

V.H. (Mother) and G.A. (Father) both appeal from jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders concerning their son, J.A., and their daughter, I.A. At the time of the orders, J.A. was nine and I.A. was two years old.
The trial court found dependency jurisdiction based on an incident in November 2016, in which Father slapped Mother on her face and took a loaded gun out of the house in response to a threat. Father was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic battery. The court ordered the children removed from Father, ordered monitored visitation by Father, and adopted case plans that directed both parents to participate in domestic violence and parenting programs. Mother and Father both argue that the trial court’s jurisdiction finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Alternatively, Mother argues that, even if the evidence was sufficient to support jurisdiction based upon Father’s conduct, it was not sufficient to support a finding that she is an offending pa

Following a contested parole revocation hearing, appellant Daniel Gaffney was found to have violated the terms and conditions of his parole by removing his global positioning system (GPS) monitoring device. The trial court revoked Gaffney’s parole and ordered him to serve 180 days in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 3010.10. On appeal, Gaffney contends the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to give proper consideration to his mental state in deciding whether to revoke his parole and to impose a period of incarceration. We affirm.

Steven Moore appeals from the judgment entered after a jury had convicted him of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189.) The first degree finding was based on either of two theories: (1) the murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated, or (2) the murder was committed by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle. The jury found true allegations that the murder had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)) and that appellant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court found true one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one prior serious or violent felony conviction (“strike”) within the meaning of California’s “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) Appellant was sentenced to prison for 80 years to life.

Mary Casamento and Ian Campbell appeal from judgments entered against them after a jury trial. They claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion for a new trial. The motion was based on opposing counsel’s misconduct in displaying to the jury evidence that the court had previously excluded. Because there is neither a reporter’s transcript nor an agreed or settled statement setting forth the relevant trial court proceedings, appellants cannot carry their burden of affirmatively showing error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) We affirm.

Jacob Michael Diaz sexually abused his biological daughter Ka.D. from 1991 to 1994. Following remarriage, he and his second wife Linda Diaz adopted a daughter, N.D., and became guardians of N.D.’s older sister, Ki.D. From 2005 to 2012, Diaz continuously sexually abused Ki.D. Ki.D. told Linda of the abuse, but was assured that the acts were only those of a loving father. Unable to endure the increasingly aggressive abuse, Ki.D. reported Diaz’s conduct to a school counselor in 2012.
Ka.D. and Ki.D. did not know each other until after Diaz was arrested in 2013, yet they described parallel experiences while living in his home. He was convicted by jury of continuous sexual abuse, lewd acts, and sexual battery. (Penal Code, §§ 288.5, subd. (a), 288, subd. (c)(1), 243.4, subd. (e)(1).) He was sentenced to a prison term of 47 years to life plus 4 months.

C.W. (Mother) and C.W. (Father) have each filed a petition seeking extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 as to their children S.W. and D.W. (minors). Mother contends there was no substantial evidence supporting the finding that it would be detrimental to return the minors to her custody, and it would have been in the minors’ best interests to continue the 18-month review hearing for additional reunification services. Father contends the Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (Bureau) did not provide reasonable reunification services and the court erred in not considering the risks to each minor separately. We will deny the petitions.

Petitioner N.B., the former foster mother, prospective adoptive parent, and de facto parent of four siblings, petitions this court for extraordinary writ relief from orders of the superior court removing the minors from her home and placing them with N.B.’s former partner, K.P. She asks for immediate return of the children. N.B. also requests a stay of all further proceedings. We issued an order to show cause on November 22, 2017. N.B. accuses the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (CFS or Bureau) of acting in bad faith, alleges denial of due process from the failure to provide timely notice of removal and protracted court delays, and argues substantial evidence does not support the court’s determination that removal from N.B. is in the children’s best interests. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ contentions, we deny N.B.’s petition and request for stay.

Ella S., currently 13 years old, was three years old when she was removed from her mother’s custody and placed with Kim M., who became her legal guardian. Ella’s maternal grandfather, Arthur S., has been seeking to have her placed with him since he first learned of her existence when she was five years old. We have previously affirmed trial court orders granting Arthur de facto parent status, and denying Arthur’s petition to set aside Kim’s guardianship and place Ella in his home. The present appeal, arising from Ella’s petition for modification, is from the juvenile court’s orders terminating the guardianship, placing Ella with Arthur with a goal of adoption and prohibiting the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) from removing Ella from Arthur’s home or contacting Ella without first contacting her attorney.

Defendant and appellant Francine Sclafani pled no contest to one count of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (Health & Saf. Code, § 11173, subd. (a)); the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for a period of three years. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable sentencing or other post-plea issues. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.

Appellant S. F. (Mother) contends the trial court erred in denying her a contested hearing before reducing visitation with her daughter, J. J. (Minor). Because Mother has not shown any error was prejudicial, the claim fails.

Hilda Allen appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to her first amended complaint without leave to amend. She contends the court erred because she stated viable causes of action based on the funding of her mortgage loan by an unidentified lender, and the trial court should have continued the demurrer hearing and granted leave to amend. We will affirm.

Raymond M. Buddie and Kaia Balsz were married in 1996. They separated in 2008, and shortly thereafter Buddie filed a petition to dissolve the marriage. Following many court proceedings, in April 2010, the parties settled, but leaving some possible issues for later modification. In 2012 Buddie filed for modification of his permanent spousal support and child support obligations. In 2013 Balsz also filed for modification of both support orders, and also seeking other relief.
The matters came on for hearing beginning August 2013, and trial was held over eight days extending into May 2014, a trial the court described as a “new record for a DCSS [Department of Child Support Services] trial.” The court issued a 16-page statement of decision and judgment on reserved issues. Both Buddie and Balsz appeal, Buddie asserting two claims of error, and Balsz purporting to assert 14 claims of error, most of them taking issue with the court’s determinations of fact. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Bart Ricardo Guillen of 10 counts of lewd conduct on a child under the age of 14 and two counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure and found true a multiple victim allegation applicable to the lewd conduct counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 90 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends his misdemeanor indecent exposure convictions must be reversed because prosecution for those offenses was untimely. The Attorney General concedes that prosecution of the misdemeanors was time-barred. Because we accept that concession, we reverse defendant’s misdemeanor indecent exposure convictions, strike the sentence imposed for those offenses, and affirm the judgment as modified.