CA Unpub Decisions

On March 30, 2016, an amended information was filed charging appellant and Carla Mariela Garcia Torres with the premediated murder of appellant’s niece, whom the two had been fostering. The information included additional charges related to child abuse and endangerment, along with an enhancement for personally inflicting great bodily injury.
After a jury trial, appellant and Torres were found guilty of a lesser included murder offense and the child abuse charges. Appellant eventually received an indeterminate term of 15 years to life, plus a consecutive, determinate term of four years.
On March 9, 2020, appellant petitioned for resentencing under former section 1170.95 by submitting a preprinted form.

On March 4, 2003, an information was filed alleging appellant and Robert Lynn Upchurch committed murder. Appellant was ultimately convicted of second degree murder after a jury trial.
In appellant’s direct appeal from his conviction, this court provided a factual background regarding the evidence presented at trial and noted that the prosecution had proceeded only upon a charge of second degree murder, relying on an implied malice theory and a second degree felony murder theory. (People v. Wedel (May 3, 2005, F044476) [nonpub. opn.].)
On June 11, 2020, appellant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 by submitting a preprinted form.

The Tuolumne County District Attorney charged defendant with the murder of Rick Roberts and alleged various firearm enhancements. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subds. (b)–(d).) The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and determined that she personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, resulting in Roberts’s death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The jury did not make findings on the lesser firearm enhancements. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life for murder and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.
On January 28, 2019, we vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 620 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.; Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 1) (Senate Bill 620), which granted trial courts the discretion to strike firearm enhancements if justice so requires. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (c), 12022.53, subd. (h).)

John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital (JFK) and Desert Regional Medical Center (Desert Regional) are hospitals in the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County, California. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (Tenet) owns and operates both hospitals.
Lifschutz worked for 14 years as a surgeon at JFK as a member of JFK’s medical staff (the medical staff). In August 2015, Lifschutz entered into a confidential settlement agreement with JFK. Lifschutz agreed to resign from the hospital’s medical practice, to move his practice, and to cease practicing at the hospital or “at any affiliated facility.” In exchange for Lifschutz’s resignation, JFK paid Lifschutz an undisclosed, confidential sum.

Plaintiffs are medical groups with anesthesia medical practices. IEHP is the local initiative Medi-Cal managed care plan that “operates under a joint powers agreement between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to provide health coverage for Medi-Cal participants. [It] arranges and pays for medical services to plan members by contracting with [independent practice associations] and others for the delivery of those services.” (Inland Empire Health Plan v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 588, 590 (IEHP v. Superior Court), disapproved on other grounds in Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 798, 814.) Riverside and San Bernardino Counties have adopted a two-plan model for Medi-Cal managed care. “Under the Two-Plan Model, a county requires its Medi-Cal beneficiaries to enroll in one of two managed care plans: a public entity HMO known as a ‘local initiative,’ or a commercial HMO.

The appellant’s opening brief contains an accurate summary of the facts of the offenses. We will incorporate the statement here for convenience.
“A. The Prosecution Evidence.
“On June 30, 2021, Escondido police officer Andrew Maxwell went to Central Elementary School in Escondido in response to a report of a fire. Maxwell saw a large plume of smoke. There was a large fire on the school grounds. The Fire Department arrived and extinguished the flames.
“Officer Matthew Nelson of the City of Escondido Police Department was an arson investigator. Nelson and his partner went to the school. Nelson saw smoldering debris in the area of the playground. The debris was the remains of a child’s play structure. A school employee provided video surveillance recordings. A still photograph from the video surveillance recordings showed two individuals. The still photograph was sent out to other officers for identification.

The appellant’s opening brief contains an accurate summary of the facts of the offenses. We will incorporate the statement here for convenience.
“A. The Prosecution Evidence.
“On June 30, 2021, Escondido police officer Andrew Maxwell went to Central Elementary School in Escondido in response to a report of a fire. Maxwell saw a large plume of smoke. There was a large fire on the school grounds. The Fire Department arrived and extinguished the flames.
“Officer Matthew Nelson of the City of Escondido Police Department was an arson investigator. Nelson and his partner went to the school. Nelson saw smoldering debris in the area of the playground. The debris was the remains of a child’s play structure. A school employee provided video surveillance recordings. A still photograph from the video surveillance recordings showed two individuals. The still photograph was sent out to other officers for identification.

Edward Walter Ferguson pled no contest to one count of felony stalking of victim B.H. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b).) Pursuant to the parties’ plea agreement, the trial court placed Ferguson on three years of formal probation.
On appeal from the probation order, Ferguson contends that he is entitled to a reduction of his period of probation from three years to two years due to a retroactive change in the law that occurred while his appeal was pending. Ferguson notes that the new law provides in relevant part: “The court, or judge thereof, in the order granting probation, may suspend the imposing or the execution of the sentence and may direct that the suspension may continue for a period of time not exceeding two years . . . .” (§ 1203.1, subd. (a), italics added.)
The People acknowledge that the change in the law applies retroactively and generally requires that periods of probation be no longer than two years.

In April 2015, eight-year-old J. was living with her parents, siblings, maternal grandmother and appellant, her maternal uncle, at a residence on Vineyard. Her parents, grandmother and appellant each had separate bedrooms. J. and her siblings slept in the living room, or with their parents or grandmother.
One afternoon in April, J.’s father went to a store to purchase some cigarettes for appellant. J. was at home with appellant. When J.’s father returned from his errand, he entered appellant’s room through that room’s separate outside entrance. He saw J. on appellant’s bed, lying on her left side facing appellant, with her hand extended toward appellant. Appellant was standing near the doorway, with his pants partly lowered. As J.’s father entered the room, J. retracted her hand and appellant pulled up or fixed his pants. J.’s father told appellant to leave the room so he could talk to J.
J.’s father told her she was not in trouble, and asked her what had happened.

On February 12, 2016, Santiago was a state prisoner at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi. He shared a prison cell with inmate Miguel Alejo. Prison Correctional Officers Christina Holcomb and Edward Knickerbocker were assigned to the floor where that cell was located. The officers heard a “grrr or groan” coming from the cell block. After investigating the location of that sound, Holcomb went to Santiago’s cell and saw Santiago “on top of” Alejo. Alejo was on his back, Santiago was on top of him, and they were “belly to belly.”
Alejo’s feet “were limp.” Santiago’s movements showed “a form of aggression” and his “muscles were tight.” The officers ordered them to stop. Santiago did not respond to that order. Alejo was not moving.
Santiago’s body position was “consistent with . . . somebody strangling someone or squeezing some part of [Alejo’s] upper body.”

Z.S. was born in March 2017. Two days later, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral alleging Z.S. was at risk of neglect. Among other things, the reporting party stated: (1) mother reported she was held captive and subjected to human trafficking from June to November 2016, when she was “forced to” use heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana; (2) she stated she started smoking marijuana when she was 12 years old, and began smoking methamphetamine when she was 16 years old; (3) she tested positive for amphetamines and opiates twice in 2016, while she was pregnant; and (4) she tested positive for methadone six days before giving birth to Z.S.

Plaintiff and appellant Video Symphony, LLC (Video Symphony) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Daniel Hunter (Hunter) and the trial court’s order denying Video Symphony’s motion for new trial. Video Symphony brought suit seeking to enforce a Stipulation for Enforcement of Judgment (Stipulation) entered into by Hunter and Video Symphony EnterTraining, Inc. (VSE), in which Hunter agreed to make payments on a student loan promissory note in exchange for dismissal of a lawsuit VSE had initiated against him to collect payment on a prior note.
On appeal, Video Symphony contends (1) the Stipulation is enforceable; (2) the trial court misinterpreted the terms of the Stipulation; and (3) the trial court erred in denying Video Symphony’s motion for new trial on the basis of procedural irregularities.

On March 11, 2020, following Justin’s and Miranda’s no contest pleas, the juvenile court sustained a three-count amended dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), finding as to the first count that Justin had inappropriately disciplined Robert C., Miranda’s oldest child, by head butting Robert, causing him unreasonable pain and suffering; Justin had on prior occasions verbally abused Robert; and Miranda had failed to take sufficient steps to protect Robert when she knew or should have known of Justin’s excessive discipline. Justin’s abusive conduct and Miranda’s failure to protect Robert, the court found, endangered Bradley and Nolan, as well as Robert, placing all three children at substantial risk of serious physical harm.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition on behalf of D.P., A.P. and K.P. on March 20, 2020 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) (nonaccidental infliction of serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (sibling abuse). On September 9, 2020 the juvenile court sustained the petition, finding true allegations under subdivisions (a) and (b) that Armando and Karina had a history of domestic violence in the presence of the children; Armando had struck Karina with his fist, slapped her face and pushed her to the ground; and Karina failed to protect the children by allowing Armando to reside in the home and have unlimited access to them. The court also found true allegations under subdivisions (b) and (j) that Armando had physically abused each of the three children and Karina had failed to protect them from that abuse.