CA Unpub Decisions

Five-year-old H.T. was declared a ward of the court when her mother Christine T. (Mother) attempted suicide. Mother filed an unverified Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition requesting unsupervised visits with grandfather Paul T. (Grandfather), and that Grandfather be allowed to supervise Mother’s visits with H.T. At the hearing on the petition, Grandfather orally joined in Mother’s petition. The court granted the petition, which was supported by the San Mateo Human Services Agency (Agency), and H.T. appeals. We conclude despite some procedural irregularities, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in allowing unsupervised visitation with Grandfather, and for Grandfather to supervise Mother’s visits. We affirm.

Hillary F. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order reducing her visits with her minor son C.G. She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion. We affirm the order.

Appellant Bruce Clotfelter appeals after a judgment following a contested probation revocation hearing where he was found in violation of probation but then reinstated on probation with additional conditions. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. Appellant has also been informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so. After our independent review of the record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, and we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Emilio Cano-Cruz was convicted by a jury of a single count of digital penetration and a single count of committing a lewd and lascivious act against his four-year old niece, under Penal Code sections 288.7, subdivision (b) and 288, subdivision (a), respectively. The court sentenced him to the statutorily-mandated sentence for a conviction under section 288.7, subdivision (b) of 15 years to life in prison. He appeals and contends his sentence violates the state and federal prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. We disagree and affirm.

Following a no contest plea, defendant Paul Amey, Jr. was convicted of first degree residential burglary and possession of burglar’s tools. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that one of the conditions of his probation, which required him to provide passwords for electronic devices, is both unreasonable under governing case law and unconstitutionally overbroad. We agree that the condition is overbroad and order it modified to conform to constitutional requirements.

Appellant Joseph Hannon argues his sentence of eight months for being a felon in possession of a firearm must be reversed because the court imposed a concurrent midterm sentence that was improper under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b). The Attorney General agrees. Hannon further appeals the imposition of a $5,000 fine and a $250 restitution fee at sentencing, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. We conclude the record does not support a finding of ineffective assistance. We remand to the trial court for resentencing on the felon in possession count and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Paul Thompson and Kathleen Thompson (the Thompsons) appeal from the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees to T.D. Service Company (TDS). TDS was the trustee in a foreclosure sale of property associated with the Thompsons. The Thompsons were not the borrowers, but they guaranteed repayment of a loan made to the borrower, 620 Third Street, LLC (LLC). When the borrower defaulted and the Thompsons did not repay the loan, the lender sued both the borrower and the Thompsons, and initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.

Appellant Thomas Coca was convicted, after a jury trial, of stalking, assault causing great bodily injury, petty theft, witness dissuasion, and brandishing a knife related to an attack on his former friend, J.R. Coca raises challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for his petty theft conviction, claiming the prosecution failed to prove he had the intent to permanently deprive J.R. of her phone. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he caused great bodily injury. Next, Coca argues the court incorrectly believed it lacked discretion to dismiss a prior conviction leading to his third strike sentence. We affirm Coca’s convictions but remand for resentencing to allow the court to properly exercise its discretion.

This consolidated appeal concerns the imposition of an allegedly unlawful sentence upon defendant by the Solano County Superior Court. Over the course of two appeals, defendant has been resentenced three times by the trial court, most recently in August 2017. After receiving responses to requests for supplemental briefing, we have determined the latest resentencing proceeding renders all issues on appeal moot, save the appropriate award of credit for time served to defendant. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to award the correct number of credits, and as modified, affirm.

Marjorie Reitzell was driving with a blood alcohol level around three times the legal limit when her car struck and killed two pedestrians, then crossed the median into the oncoming traffic lane and struck a second car. Reitzell was convicted of two counts of murder, driving under the influence (DUI) causing bodily injury and related crimes. She contends the court erred when it denied her pretrial motion to suppress the results of a blood draw obtained without issuance of a search warrant. The court’s determination that Reitzell consented to the blood draw is supported by the record, so we affirm.

Defendant Christian J. Kay appeals following his conviction by a jury of two counts of assault and one count of shooting a BB device in a grossly negligent manner, all misdemeanors. He contends his statement to his school principal admitting he shot two students with an air rifle should have been excluded because he was not advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 (Miranda) before the principal questioned him. He further contends that additional evidence should have been excluded because his subsequent statements to law enforcement were obtained in violation of Miranda and his consent to the search of his apartment was not voluntary.
We affirm.

In these consolidated appeals, defendant Ravdeep Bhasin (Bhasin) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of plaintiffs Manjit S. Sandhu and Satinder K. Dhillon (collectively, plaintiffs). We affirm.

Kalann R. Johnson appeals his conviction following jury trial on charges related to two separate incidents occurring a week apart in April 2010. In the first, on April 6, police were attempting to detain the 19-year-old Johnson when he fled and was captured and forcibly put on the ground, but continued to physically resist being put into a patrol car, a patrol wagon, and then an ambulance. In the second incident on April 13, Johnson, using a semiautomatic pistol, shot at two security officers working at a public housing complex in the Bayview Hunter’s Point District of San Francisco.

Martin Costa appeals a 21-year prison sentence imposed after he pleaded no contest to three counts of committing lewd acts on a child by force. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1).) Upon defendant’s timely appeal, we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appellate counsel filed a brief stating the case and facts but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. Defendant did not file written argument.
We have reviewed the entire record to determine if there are any arguable appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440–441.) We include here a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case as well as the conviction and punishment imposed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.) Finding no arguable issue, we will affirm the judgment.