CA Unpub Decisions

Mary Lou Wilson appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondent Merry Stephanie Woodfin, the executor of the estate of Edwina Lou Fuchs. With one minor exception, the judgment upheld the accuracy of respondent’s inventory of the estate. Appellant also appeals from a postjudgment order requiring her to pay respondent’s reasonable attorney fees and costs. We affirm.

Victor Manuel Anaya appeals a judgment following his conviction for evading an officer with “[w]illful [d]isregard” (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), a felony. The trial court sentenced Anaya to two years in state prison. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not err by 1) denying Anaya’s request to reduce this conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor, and 2) deciding not to place him on probation. We affirm.

Arlester C. Gordon appeals after a jury convicted him of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664; count 1) and shooting at an occupied building (§ 246; count 2). The jury also found that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in committing the attempted murder (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and had suffered prior serious felony and strike convictions and served a prior prison term (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1) & (b)-(j), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced him to 39 years to life in state prison. A concurrent seven-year term was imposed on count 2.

Darrell Lee Williams appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of voluntary manslaughter and five counts of assault with a deadly weapon. He argues the trial court improperly denied his Trombetta/Youngblood motion because the state breached its duty to preserve material evidence. Alternatively, he argues the trial court erred in rejecting his proffered jury instruction concerning failure to preserve evidence. We disagree and affirm.

Appellant Taylor B. (Taylor), a minor, appeals from a judgment (order of wardship) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered following a determination she committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2) and acted as an accessory after the fact to murder (§ 32; count 3). Taylor claims the juvenile court erroneously ruled she waived her Miranda rights, and erred by failing to suppress her involuntary confession obtained by way of a police ruse. She further contends the court erred by refusing to consider a psychologist’s testimony supporting Taylor’s theory of self-defense. We affirm.

Owned by plaintiff Jean Paul Nataf, plaintiff Boss Litho, Inc. (together Boss Litho), is in the design and printing business. Owned by defendant Annie Lin, defendant Coshima USA Imports doing business as Creative Ideas (together Coshima) sells gift wrapping supplies. In 2013, Boss Litho began preparing a catalog for Coshima as Boss Litho’s predecessor had done in the past. The relationship turned acrimonious and the project fell apart, leading Boss Litho to sue Coshima to obtain payment for work done and Coshima to cross-complain for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotion distress. After a bench trial, the trial court issued a statement of decision and judgment awarding damages to Coshima on its cross-complaint, subject to an “offset” for work performed by Boss Litho.

Plaintiff Shawn Terris appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of her former employer, defendant County of Santa Barbara (County), in her wrongful termination action. We conclude, among other things, that: 1) Terris did not exhaust her administrative remedies on her claims that the County terminated her job to discriminate against her in violation of Labor Code sections 1101, 1102, and 1102.5 ; 2) there are no triable issues of fact on Terris’s claim that she was terminated because of her sexual orientation (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a), Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)); but 3) the trial court erred by awarding the County costs on the FEHA cause of action. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Thomas Nolan Yanaga appeals from the judgment entered after a jury had convicted him of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.) The jury found true an allegation that he had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) He was sentenced to prison for 40 years to life.

Plaintiff David Daniel and defendant Nissim Edri were equal partners in a jewelry business operating as Continental Coin and Jewelry Co. (Continental Coin). After almost five years, Daniel decided to sell his interest in the company. The partners agreed Daniel would take $4 million in merchandise as payment for his 50 percent interest; however, a dispute later arose over whether the merchandise Daniel received satisfied the buyout amount. In the end, Daniel sued Edri and the company, asserting they breached an alleged oral contract pertaining to the buyout.

The appeal relates to a juvenile court proceeding that took place 29 years ago. On October 3, 2016, pursuant to section 782 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, appellant, Hugo T., who was then 43 years of age, moved in the San Mateo County Superior Court to dismiss two delinquency petitions sustained by the juvenile court in 1988, when he was 15 years of age. This appeal is from the denial of that petition.

Defendant Thomas Fox Gilles appeals a judgment convicting him of sexually molesting his daughter and sentencing him to three consecutive indeterminate terms of 15 years to life, plus an additional consecutive 27 years in prison. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the jury’s finding that his crimes were committed with duress and in support of the court’s restitution award. He also argues that he was prejudiced by the admission of improper testimony by the prosecution’s expert witness regarding the low rate of false allegations of sexual abuse by children and asserts a related claim of instructional error. Finally, he argues that the court operations assessment imposed by the court is excessive. We find no error that requires reversal of his conviction, but agree that the amount of the assessment must be corrected.

Jose ́ Flores was convicted of committing three sexual offenses against his girlfriend’s teenage daughter. He contends the trial court abused its discretion under California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 (Trombetta) when it declined to dismiss the case as a sanction for the prosecution’s failure to preserve a recording of an investigator’s interview with the victim. Flores also contends his attorney’s representation of him was constitutionally inadequate because she failed in closing argument to address an inconsistency between the testimony of the victim and her mother. Finally, he asserts his restitution fine violates Penal Code section 654 and his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to it. None of his contentions have merit. We affirm.

This case comes before us for review under the procedures prescribed in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442 (Wende). Appellant Jameelah Bey (Jameelah) appeals following her convictions by no contest plea of one count of conspiracy (Pen. Code, § 182), 14 counts of filing false instruments (§ 115), three counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)), two counts of insurance fraud (§ 550, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of fraudulent statements regarding worker’s compensation claims (Ins. Code, § 11880, subd. (a)), together with an aggravated white collar crime enhancement and excessive taking enhancements appended to the grand theft and conspiracy counts. (§§ 186.11, subd. (a), 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)).

Defendant In Hwan Oh, acting in propria persona, appeals from an order granting plaintiff San Francisco Christian University & Seminary (SFCUS) a preliminary injunction.
SFCUS moved for the preliminary injunction to require Oh, its former president, to stop holding himself out and acting as a university recruiter or member of its faculty or administration; return control of all university finances and bank accounts to the current administration; and turn over all university records and personal property including its keys, enrollment roster, and corporate seal. The university alleged and adduced evidence that Oh continued to hold himself out as an officer, teacher and recruiter for the university, causing damage to its reputation, after its board of directors validly removed him from office on December 27, 2014. Following argument, the superior court granted the preliminary injunction as requested.