- Family: Riverside Superior Judge Kelly Hansen’s termination of parental rights reversed in In re J.S. (SWJ1200383/E079557)
- The court removed a 10-day-old son from his parent’s care after finding she had a long history of substance abuse and mental health problems. One of her children died in her care, and two were abused. The father appealed the decision, arguing that the county did not properly investigate the child’s possible Native American heritage as required by federal law for the purpose of placing children in their tribe’s custody. The father said information about his ancestry was provided in his other children’s cases, but was not used in the son’s case. The Department of Public Social Services admitted the fault. The Court of Appeal vacated the order terminating parental rights with directions to reinstate it after a month if no tribes claim the child as a member.
- Family: San Bernardino Superior Judge Lynn Poncin’s termination of parental rights affirmed in In re M.R. (J287654/E079802)
- The court terminated a mother’s parental rights due to her long history of drug use and criminal history. The mother appealed, arguing that the court should not have determined the child did not benefit from their relationship. The Court of Appeal disagreed with her argument, and affirmed the order.
- Criminal: Riverside Superior Judge William Lebov’s denial of resentencing affirmed in P. v. Vielma (RIF1401060/E079613)
- Bobby Vielma pleaded guilty in 2015 to stabbing his wife and threatening her not to go to the police. He received 26 years. His plea gave him convictions for second degree attempted murder, criminal threats, infliction of harm to a cohabitant, attempting to dissuade a witness from reporting a crime and mayhem. He petitioned to be resentenced July 7, citing a change in California law, Penal Code Section 1172.6. The trial court denied his petition, he appealed, and the Court of Appeal agreed with the court. In a dissenting opinion, Fourth Court of Appeal, Division Two, Justice Frank Menetrez wrote that the court should have dismissed the appeal as abandoned.
- Criminal: Riverside Superior Judge John Molloy’s denial of resentencing affirmed in P. v. Bowling (SWF023106/E079323)
- Michael Bowling fired 10 shots from a car, hitting three people. He was found guilty on three counts of attempted manslaughter and three counts of assault with a firearm, and was sentenced to 33 years, eight months in prison. He petitioned to be resentenced under California reform Penal Code Section 1172.6. The trial court denied his petition, finding that he was the actual killer, and thus did not get relief under the law. Bowling appealed, and the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court.
- Criminal: San Bernardino Superior Judge Lorenzo Balderrama’s commitment to a mental hospital affirmed in P. v. Hubbs (FBABS700108/D077636)
- The trial court committed Norman Hubbs to the Department of State Hospitals in Coalinga for treatment as a sexually violent predator. Hubbs had first been committed in 2003. Hubbs appealed the order. He argued that the trial court violated his due process rights by allowing long delays, denying his motion to change his court-ordered attorney, admitting evidence despite his objections, allowing hearsay and denying his claim that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. The Court of Appeal ruled that his trial was fair.
- Criminal: Riverside Superior Judge Matthew Perantoni’s convictions affirmed in part in People v. Ramirez (RIF1605001/E077359)
- Pedro Paredes Ramirez was convicted of nine counts of sexual misconduct with minors. Prosecutors claimed he broke into a home and sexually abused a 6-year-old. He appealed his convictions, arguing that there was not enough evidence to support two of his convictions, that the information was not specific enough and that he should be resentenced due to changes to California state law. The change in law requires a jury to decide if there were aggravating factors before the judge uses the factors to increase a defendant’s sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed his other arguments, but agreed that he should be resentenced without the upper term.
Related Posts
Judicial ethics committee OKs judicial statements during elections, recalls
Judges can advocate for themselves, and others, in elections and recalls, a California ethics committee said Nov. 19. The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions clarified judicial ethics…
Aidan McGloinNovember 20, 2024
Appellate ruling roundup Nov. 18
Criminal: San Bernardino Superior Judge Michael Camber's denial of resentencing affirmed in People v. Orozco (FWV1400057/E082726)Criminal: San Bernardino Superior Retired Judge Ronald M. Christianson's assigned restitution fines affirmed in People…
Aidan McGloinNovember 18, 2024
