People v. Palafox CA6
Filed 4/2/25 P. v. Palafox CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H052319 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. F2300652)
v.
GAGE JOSE PALAFOX,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Gage Jose Palafox appeals from a judgment entered after pleading no contest to endangering or injuring the health of two children. Appointed counsel for Palafox filed an opening brief which provides the procedural and factual background of the case but raises no legal challenge to the disposition. Counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Palafox was advised of the right to file written arguments on his own behalf but has not responded. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Palafox, we affirm the judgment.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background1 On March 16, 2022, police responded to a 911 call from a female adult, who stated that Palafox, her former boyfriend, had been abusing her two minor children, John Doe2 (age 8 at the time) and Joe Doe (age 6 at the time). According to the children’s mother, John had told her the previous day that Palafox had used a clothes hanger to hang Joe “up in the air,” then used the same hanger to hit Joe on the fingers. While giving them baths, their mother noticed suspicious marks on their skin. The next day, she received a number of calls from Palafox complaining about her sons’ behavior, which led her to contact the police. Officers spoke with both boys, who confirmed that Palafox had hurt them. The boys had visible marks on their bodies, including their forearms, forehead, and ankles; further investigation revealed red marks on the inner part of Joe’s buttocks, both thighs, his genitals, and just below his stomach. Officers subsequently contacted Palafox, who indicated that he frequently babysat for the children while their mother worked and denied hitting or hurting either boy. He also described their mother as “unstable.” Later the same day, the children’s mother self-committed to a hospital on a mental health hold, and the children were placed in the custody of their paternal grandmother. In the following months, various enforcement officers, social workers, therapists, and medical professionals met and examined the boys. Based on these examinations, they cumulatively concluded that Palafox had regularly hit both boys with a clothes
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)