CA Unpub Decisions

Appellants Paul Bussard and Lynn Denley-Bussard (the Bussards) filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to set aside several approvals granted by the City of Santa Rosa (the City) relating to a housing development project (the project) proposed by real parties in interest, Real Equity Partners, LLC and Real Equity Property Holdings, LLC (the Developers). The trial court denied the petition, finding that the City followed proper procedures and acted within its authority. The Bussards contend they are entitled to writ relief because the project violates (1) Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 (the general plan), and (2) provisions of the Santa Rosa City Code that protect trees impacted by development. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Aptos Residents Association (ARA) challenges the superior court’s denial of its petition for a writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000, et seq.). ARA’s petition challenged the approval by respondent County of Santa Cruz (the County) of a microcell transmitter project proposed by real party Crown Castle (Crown). Crown’s project originally proposed to install 13 microcell transmitters as part of a Distributed Antenna System (DAS). These microcells would be placed on utility poles, primarily in the public right of way, in the Day Valley area, a rural portion of unincorporated Aptos. The County concluded that Crown’s DAS project was categorically exempt from CEQA and rejected ARA’s claim that an exception to the exemption applied.

Defendant Geoffrey Raynard Chambers was convicted of two counts of rape by force or fear (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)); four counts of oral copulation by force or fear (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A)); and one count of sexual penetration by force or fear (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)(A)). All of the sexual conduct was perpetrated against defendant’s half-sister. Defendant argues that the trial court erred before trial by not dismissing the case upon learning that the district attorney’s office had inadvertently obtained recordings of jail telephone calls between defendant and his attorney. Defendant argues that the trial court erred during trial by admitting unduly prejudicial evidence that the victim had been offered (and declined) a bribe not to testify. Defendant challenges as unduly prejudicial admission of recorded statements he made that were derogatory toward homosexuals. And defendant argues the foregoing errors are cumulatively prejudicial.

V.A. (mother) appeals the order terminating her parental rights and finding her children, now ten, nine, eight and five, likely to be adopted. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26 (unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code).) Mother argues the record contains insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s adoptability finding.
We affirm.

Father appeals the juvenile court order denying him reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6), based on allegations he sexually abused his step-daughter, NB (16 years old). Father argues that his two biological daughters, MB (13 years old) and BDB (11 years old), and biological son, BB (8 years old), are not at risk of sexual abuse and want to return to his care. Father contends the trial court erred in denying him reunification services because the three biological children would benefit from Father receiving reunification services, and granting him reunification services is in their best interests. We affirm the order denying Father reunification services.

The trial court placed defendant and appellant Florin Lupu on formal probation after a jury convicted him of dissuading a witness and two counts of misdemeanor assault. In this appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred when it failed to hold a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) after he indicated at a pretrial hearing on his Faretta motion that he either wanted to represent himself or, “if not, then I would like to be represented by that attorney right there that’s sitting down.” We conclude that the trial court had no duty to hold a Marsden hearing because defendant never complained about his counsel or clearly indicated that he wanted to replace his counsel.

Defendant shot and killed a thief who was stealing scrap metal from his property. Defendant appeals from judgment entered following a jury conviction for first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ; count 1). The jury also found true three firearm allegations (§ 12022.53). Defendant pled guilty to counts 2 through 4 for possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)); possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)); and failure to register each residence (§ 290.010). The trial court struck one of the firearm allegations and two prior strike allegations. The court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life in prison.
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence of the first degree murder theories of lying in wait and of premeditation and deliberation.

This matter is before us on remand from the California Supreme Court. In 2012 Latrice Rubenstein filed a claim under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, §§ 810, 905) with defendant Doe No. 1 (defendant), a public entity, alleging that from 1993 to 1994, when she was a high school student, her cross-country and track coach, who was defendant's employee, sexually molested her. When the claim was denied, she commenced this action against defendant and defendants Does Nos. 2-20. She alleged that latent memories of the sexual abuse resurfaced in early 2012, when she was about 34 years old. The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend concluding that the matter was time barred. Rubenstein timely appealed from the judgment of dismissal.

S.H., the (adoptive) mother of minor D.H., appeals from the juvenile court’s order continuing the minor’s out-of-home placement, terminating mother’s reunification services, and issuing a no-contact order between mother and the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21 & 395.)
Mother’s sole claim on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in issuing the no-contact order. Disagreeing, we shall affirm.

A jury found defendant Michael Hartrell Elliott guilty of inflicting corporal injury on his spouse with the enhancement of personally inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a); 12022.7, subd. (e)--count one) and battery causing serious bodily injury with the allegation of personally inflicting the same (§§ 243, subd. (d); 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)--count two). The trial court subsequently found true allegations that defendant was previously convicted of a strike offense and served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 20 years in state prison, which included two consecutive one-year terms for the two section 667.5, subdivision (b) priors.

Defendant Sidney Edward Wallace was convicted of multiple charges related to a domestic violence incident, including carjacking. (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a).) On appeal, he contends the trial court’s carjacking instructions were inadequate. He also challenges his felony conviction under Vehicle Code section 10851, arguing the People failed to establish his crime was a felony pursuant to Proposition 47 and section 490.2. We affirm.

In this juvenile dependency case, defendant and appellant L.B. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her 12-year-old son, Joseph W. In particular, mother argues that, at the permanency planning hearing, the juvenile court violated her due process rights by limiting her counsel’s ability to address whether Joseph objected to adoption. As a result, mother claims she was unable to establish either the beneficial parental relationship exception or the child-objection exception to adoption. As explained below, we conclude that, even assuming the juvenile court erred and the challenged testimony should have been permitted, the error was harmless and not a ground for reversal. If admitted, the challenged testimony would not change the propriety of the juvenile court’s ruling terminating mother’s parental rights.

Joe Peter Montoya purportedly appeals from a post judgment order denying his application to reduce his 1995 and 1996 felony convictions to misdemeanors under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b). We affirm.

Philippe Mengibria Lutete was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of nine years following a negotiated plea to charges of rape and assault to commit rape in Los Angeles Superior Court case number GA095586 and battery by gassing in case number BA445405. Lutete filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the validity of his plea in case number GA095586 and obtained a certificate of probable cause. Lutete’s court-appointed appellate counsel notified this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 that he was unable to find any arguable issues to assert on appeal. We affirm.