CA Unpub Decisions

On the evening of February 12, 2014, Joseph Faggan returned home to find many of his belongings missing, as the result of an apparent burglary. The missing property included a video game console that had been plugged into Faggan’s living room television. Faggan’s television had layers of dust on it, which had been disturbed by what appeared to be latent fingerprint impressions. The latent prints were lifted, processed, and found to substantially match defendant.

After a jury was unable to reach a verdict on any of the charges of child molestation of five victims, the People filed a second amended complaint against defendant Shane Adair Vicars. The second amended complaint charged defendant with committing 13 counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 against two victims, D. and J. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) The second trial culminated with defendant’s conviction on all 13 counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 26 years in state prison and imposed various fines and fees.

M.P. (father) appeals only from the dispositional order removing infant son L.P. from his custody; K.P. (mother) has not appealed. The child was returned to father’s custody at the six-month review hearing. Because this court can afford no effective relief and there is no prejudice to father, we dismiss this appeal

Appellant Julio Cesar Carriedo was convicted by jury of unlawfully driving a vehicle (count 1; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (count 2; Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)), and possessing a smoking device (count 3; Health & Saf. Code, former § 11364.1, subd. (a), now § 11364, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that appellant had suffered a prior conviction for vehicle theft (§ 666.5, subd. (a)) and had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced appellant to five years on count 1 (with four years to be served in county jail followed by one year of mandatory supervision), a concurrent term of three years on count 2, and a concurrent term of six months on count 3.

H.C. (father) appeals from the dependency court’s order terminating jurisdiction and granting sole legal custody of J.C. to L.G. (mother) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.4. He contends the order was an abuse of discretion because the court mistakenly believed it could not grant joint legal custody to an incarcerated parent. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Defendant Juan C. Suarez appeals from an order denying his motion to reduce or vacate a restitution fine that was imposed in 2001. His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no legal issues and requested that this court conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Since defendant has appealed from a nonappealable order, we dismiss the appeal. (People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208 (Turrin).)

T.S. was charged in a wardship petition with felony possession of a concealable firearm by a minor, and misdemeanor possession of live ammunition by a minor. (Pen. Code, §§ 29610, 29650.) He denied both counts.
T.S. was two days shy of his seventeenth birthday at the time of his arrest in this case. According to a probation report, T.S. was arrested at the age of 11, and again at age 12. He was declared a ward of the court multiple times: at age 13 (for resisting a police officer and vandalism); at age 14 (for making terrorist threats and resisting an officer); and at age 15 (for attempted robbery, resisting an officer, and battery). He became a dependent of the juvenile court at the age of six months, and is in a guardianship. The probation department recommended that T.S. be placed in a restrictive environment for his safety and for the safety of the community.

A jury convicted Saleh Sheikh Khazaly (defendant) of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9 subd. (b)) and disobeying a domestic violence protective order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (d)). We affirmed defendant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Khazaly (June 13, 2017, B275346) [nonpub. opn.] (Khazaly I).)
While Khazaly I was pending, counsel appointed to represent defendant on appeal petitioned the trial court to unseal identifying information for one trial juror. The trial court denied the petition for lack of good cause. Defendant (now represented by different appointed counsel) again appeals, this time contending the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition. The trial court’s order is not appealable, however, and we dismiss the appeal.

Dr. James Musser appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandate. Dr. Musser’s dental practice was audited by the Department of Health Care Services (Department) and he seeks to set aside the Department’s adverse findings resulting from the audit. Dr. Musser contends there is insufficient evidence to support the Department’s disallowance of paid claims under the Denti-Cal program. We affirm the judgment.

Two of four parents appeal, challenging the dispositional orders for three half-siblings based on noncompliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) concedes a limited remand is appropriate for one child, M.C., in order to secure compliance with ICWA. DCFS, however, urges the appeal is moot as to N.C., over whom juvenile jurisdiction has been terminated. We agree with the latter contention and dismiss the appeal as to N.C. We affirm as to L.C. As to M.C., we affirm and remand with directions to comply with ICWA’s notice requirements.

Michael S. appeals from juvenile court orders declaring his children, Michael Jr., Michelle, and Mariah, dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and placing them with their mothers or other family members. Michael contends the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related state law. The Department contends Michael’s appeals of the orders with regard to Michael Jr. and Mariah are moot because the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over them after Michael filed these appeals. With regard to Michelle, the Department contends it and the court complied with ICWA and related state law requirements.

Plaintiff Vickie L. Zacher appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer to her wrongful death action and the voluntary dismissal of her remaining personal injury claims. The wrongful death action was brought against defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (Robinson) and others for the death of John Zacher, Vickie’s husband, in a helicopter crash. The helicopter -- which Vickie alleged was defective -- had been manufactured and sold by Robinson in California, but the crash occurred in Minnesota. John and Vickie were residents of Minnesota at the time of the crash. Applying the Minnesota statute governing wrongful death actions in accordance with California’s so-called “borrowing statute” (Code Civ. Proc., § 361), which provides that when a cause of action arises in another state California courts must apply the limitation laws of that state, the trial court found that Vickie’s wrongful death action was time-barred.

Plaintiff and appellant Robert H. Bisno appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Vineyards Development Inc., Ryan Ogulnick, and VDB Santa Ana, LLC (VDB) after the court sustained respondents’ demurrer without leave to amend. Bisno contends his claims are not barred by the doctrines of claim preclusion or issue preclusion. Respondents argue the trial court correctly sustained their demurrer based on prior litigation that resulted in judgments adverse to Bisno’s company. We hold that the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer to all causes of action except for the eleventh, alleging quantum meruit for legal services. We affirm, except for that portion of the judgment sustaining the demurrer to the eleventh cause of action, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Defendant Abraham Geronimo challenges his conviction for attempted premeditated murder. He argues that the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.