CA Unpub Decisions

A Butte County Sheriff’s Deputy obtained a warrant to search defendant Charles Darrell Murphy, Jr.’s mobile home and found firearms, ammunition, dozens of Vicodin pills, and a methamphetamine pipe. Probable cause for the search warrant was based, in part, on Murphy’s status as a convicted felon, which in turn was based on a Department of Justice (DOJ) rap sheet, which indicated Murphy had been convicted of a felony in 2005. The DOJ rap sheet was wrong in that it failed to indicate that the 2005 conviction had been reduced to a misdemeanor nearly three and one-half years earlier.

David Izaguirre appeals the judgment following his conviction for the premeditated murder of Alicia Espinoza. He seeks reversal of his conviction on the grounds (1) the prosecutor misstated the reasonable doubt standard during voir dire and rebuttal closing argument; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of certain autopsy photographs; (3) the trial court erroneously admitted appellant’s Honduran identification card; and (4) the prosecutor improperly told jurors to report if other jurors were not “deliberating the way they’re supposed to be deliberating.” We find no prejudicial error and affirm.

Mother, McKenzie T., appeals from a disposition order denying her reunification services with respect to her 12-month-old son, Anthony D. The juvenile court made the order pursuant to subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(11) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, which provide reunification services need not be offered to a parent if the court has previously terminated reunification services or parental rights with respect to the child’s sibling or half sibling and the parent “has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling.” (§ 361.5, subds. (b)(10) & (b)(11).) Mother contends the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding that she failed to make a reasonable effort to treat the drug abuse problem that led to termination of her parental rights over Anthony’s half sibling. We disagree and affirm.

In this trip and fall case, Aurora Rodriguez appeals from a summary judgment in favor of respondent City of Lynwood. We conclude the sidewalk defect over which appellant tripped and fell was trivial as a matter of law. The judgment is affirmed.

Jessica Ramirez (Jessica) was injured in an accident, and her injuries were exacerbated by the medical care she received afterward. Acting through her mother as guardian ad litem, Jessica sued her medical care providers for malpractice. In February 2010, a jury returned a verdict in Jessica’s favor. While the appeal in that case was pending, Jessica and the medical malpractice defendants reached a settlement, which provided for a lump sum payment, guaranteed monthly payments over a period of five years to be paid into a trust for Jessica’s benefit, and additional monthly payments to be paid to the trust during Jessica’s lifetime, beginning on October 1, 2015. Jessica passed away in September 2010, before the settlement could be approved by the court as required by Code of Civil Procedure, section 372.

Donna L. (mother) petitions this court for extraordinary review of a juvenile court order setting a hearing to select a permanent plan for her child, D.L. (minor), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the juvenile court erred because (1) she was not provided reasonable services, (2) there was a substantial probability minor could be returned to her home by the 18-month review hearing, and (3) the order limiting her educational rights was not necessary for protection of minor. We reject mother’s contentions and deny the petition.

Defendant D.F., a ward of the court, appeals after a judgment in a proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. D.F.’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. D.F. 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.

G.H. appeals from an order finding him in violation of his probation and committing him to a youth rehabilitation facility. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.

Here, the termination of parental rights has already occurred, and the petition is brought by the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) pursuant to section 366.28 and rule 8.456. The Agency filed the petition to overturn the order of respondent court denying the Agency’s motion to remove dependent W.T. from the placement with real party in interest Dawn H., who is the dependent’s long-time foster parent, de facto parent, and, as initially recommended by the Agency, W.T.’s prospective adoptive parent.

A.O. (Minor) appeals an order of the juvenile court dismissing a dependency petition filed on her behalf by the Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency). We shall reverse the order.

Minor E.N. appeals a juvenile court order denying his motion to dismiss his dependency petitions and seal his records pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 and setting victim restitution under section 730.6. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion for relief under section 786, but agree that the restitution order must be reduced by $81. Accordingly, we direct the trial court to modify the amount of restitution and affirm in all other respects.

In this dependency appeal, Ava T. (mother) challenges the dispositional orders removing her young son, A.T., from her care pursuant to section 361 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Specifically, she asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s determination that A.T. would be at substantial risk of harm if returned to her physical custody given her progress since the filing of the petition. Concluding that ample evidence supports the juvenile court’s removal order, we affirm.

In this juvenile writ proceeding, both Ch. M. (mother) and Terry S. (father) seek extraordinary relief from the juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code with respect to their young son, C.M. Specifically, both parents argue that they were denied reasonable services and/or active efforts to prevent the breakup of their Indian family as mandated by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., and state law. Mother additionally asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s detriment finding, which blocked return of C.M. to her care.

Jainice Robinson was convicted by a jury of assault and vandalism, both as felonies. She contends a probation condition that bars her use of social media is not reasonably related to her crimes or possible future criminality and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We affirm.