CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants and appellants Jovany Rodrigo Rangel and Abel Eduardo Casillas were convicted by jury of assault with a firearm and kidnapping, and various special allegations were found true. On appeal, defendants contend the trial court committed error by discharging a juror for misconduct after deliberations had begun, and for replacing two other jurors with alternates. Defendant Rangel also contends the court erred in giving an instruction on flight.
We affirm both convictions. However, during the pendency of this appeal, amendments to Penal Code section 12022.53 became effective. Under the amended version of the statute, the trial court now has discretion to strike a gun use enhancement. As we explain below, we therefore remand for resentencing.

A jury found defendant and appellant Teneca Louise Wilson guilty of, among other things, theft by trick from an elder. On appeal, Wilson contends that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction of that crime and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her Romero motion. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

In this case, appellate counsel has made an independent review of the trial court proceedings and determined the record reflects no meritorious claims for appeal. He has advised appellant Pratt of his conclusion. He also advised appellant he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues Pratt believes merit our review. Appellant has not filed any such brief or letter. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, counsel asks this court to make an independent review of the record. We have done so and find no issues meriting further briefing. We affirm the judgment.

In May of 2016, the juvenile court found that J.S.—who was then more than 20 years of age—violated this condition, imposed lifetime sex offender registration, and ordered him committed to DJF. J.S. advances a number of arguments—the majority of which were not raised below—as establishing fatal infirmities in the violation, the commitment, and the registration requirement. We conclude there is no basis for overturning the commitment, and we thus affirm.

In this action for reformation of an insurance contract, plaintiff AIG Specialty Insurance Company (AIG) appeals following the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant Interstate Fire and Casualty Company (Interstate). We affirm.

T.D. (Minor) appeals after the juvenile court denied his petition to reduce a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) We shall affirm the order without prejudice to the filing of a new petition.

In this landlord-tenant dispute, plaintiffs Jenny Duncan and Jennifer Smith (Plaintiffs) appeal following a jury trial and several postverdict orders. We reverse and remand two attorney fee orders, and otherwise affirm.

Defendant Anthony Campa appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §459). The trial court found that defendant had one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and five prior serious felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 11 years in state prison. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence about his prior conduct. We affirm.

Ritchie Renay Burnell was convicted of possession for sale of cocaine and possession of oxycodone. The trial court found true sentencing enhancement allegations that defendant had previously been convicted of Health and Safety Code violations.
After defendant was sentenced, Senate Bill No. 180 amended Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 to abolish the Health and Safety Code sentencing enhancement in this case. Defendant argues, and the Attorney General concedes, that Senate Bill No. 180 should be applied retroactively. We order that the true finding on the sentencing enhancement allegation be stricken. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

L.S. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders denying her reunification services as to her now two-year-old daughter, Myla S., and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. The court denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(4), after finding she caused the death of her son, M.O., through neglect. Mother seeks an order granting her custody of Myla or reunification services. We deny the petition.

Petitioner Amanda H. seeks an extraordinary writ directing the juvenile court to vacate its orders issued at a contested 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22), terminating her reunification services as to her now 23-month-old daughter, Addison, and setting a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan of adoption. Amanda contends the juvenile court erred in not returning Addison to her custody. We deny the petition.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jose Manuel Valladares 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. He responded, requesting that we consider as his supplemental brief his petition for modification of sentence, filed with the superior court on April 21, 2017, and denied on May 8, 2017. Having reviewed the record and finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Zazueta 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. We remand for the trial court to either impose or strike a prior prison term enhancement. In all other respects, we affirm.

A.A. (Mother) has a history of abusing drugs, as well as mental health and domestic violence issues which led to the San Bernardino County Department of Children and Family Services (CFS) removing her five-year-old daughter A.A. (the child) from her care. After over two years in the dependency system, the juvenile court terminated parental rights and freed the child for adoption. On appeal, Mother argues the juvenile court erred in summarily denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and that the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights. We find no error, and affirm the judgment.