CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Antonio Menchaca, Jr., of one count of transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that the weight of the methamphetamine exceeded 10 kilograms (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (b)(3)). The trial court sentenced Menchaca to 12 years in prison, the two-year low term with a consecutive 10-year term for the weight allegation. The court then imposed a split sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B), ordering Menchaca to serve eight years in custody and the remaining four years on mandatory supervision.

Plaintiffs in a certified class action filed by representative plaintiff Rachel Rosendez against defendant Green Pharmaceuticals (Green) appeal from a judgment after a court trial in favor of Green on their causes of action for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA, Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) and violation of the unfair competition law (UCL, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) and false advertising law (FAL, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq.). Green manufactures and markets SnoreStop FastTabs (SnoreStop), a homeopathic remedy for snoring. In their complaint, plaintiffs' allege SnoreStop "is a sugar pill that . . . Green . . . falsely advertises has the ability to stop snoring. In reality, [SnoreStop] consists of a simple blend of highly diluted ingredients that have no impact on snoring."

In this Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 proceeding, following entry of a negotiated plea, minor K.S. challenges the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1.) We affirm the judgment.

Appellant Claudia D. Chaus appeals from an order denying her motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Family Code section 2122, subdivisions (a), (b), and (f). (Statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise set forth.) Chaus contends the trial court erred in refusing to grant her motion to set aside the stipulated judgment. We affirm the trial court’s order.

Nathan Abel Augustine appeals a judgment following his no contest plea to exhibiting a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1)), as a “hate crime” (§ 422.7, subd. (a)), and his admission that he had two prior strike convictions (§ 451, subd. (c)), and a prior prison commitment (§ 667.5, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of two years eight months.

Deangelo Antwan Bynum appeals from the judgment imposed after his guilty plea. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).)
Bynum demanded and took wallets and cell phones from six high school students. He pled guilty to three counts of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5.) The trial court sentenced him to four years in prison.

Hsin Chieh Jerry Wang appeals from the judgment entered after pleading guilty to four counts of pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (a)) , six counts of money laundering (§ 186.10, subd. (a)), and conspiracy to commit human tracking (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1); 236.1, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to twelve years, eight months state prison and ordered appellant to pay various fines and fees.
The probation report reflects that appellant set up a human trafficking network that operated in Kern, Tulare, San Diego, Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The network generated approximately $40,000 to $50,000 a month, over a four year period. Money from the illicit operation was used to purchase real property and vehicles, and to wire money to China.

John Stoney, Jr. appeals an order of probation granted after his nolo contendere plea to carrying a concealed firearm. (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(2).) We conclude that the trial court properly denied Stoney’s motion to suppress evidence, and affirm.
This appeal concerns legal justification for the warrantless search of Stoney’s backpack following his detention for possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. At a hearing to exclude evidence of a firearm found inside the backpack, the prosecutor asserted that a police officer searched the backpack incident to Stoney’s arrest. At the time of the search, the backpack was inside a residence and Stoney was detained outside. The trial court rejected that legal justification, however, and decided that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search.

Four of appellant Mary M.’s children were adjudicated dependents, based on her history of alcohol abuse and her willingness to continue to allow her abusive and neglectful boyfriend to have unlimited access to the children. At the disposition hearing, the court imposed, among other conditions for reunification, the requirement that mother clear up an existing warrant for selling liquor to a minor. Mother appeals only that portion of the court’s disposition order. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in requiring mother to stop living as a fugitive, and therefore affirm.

Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (appellant) appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The arbitration involved a contract dispute between appellant and EHM Productions, Inc. (respondent) regarding appellant’s duty to defend respondent in a lawsuit brought by appellant’s bus drivers. Respondent obtained an award requiring appellant to defend respondent in the bus driver action. Respondent filed a petition to confirm the award, which was granted.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed in propria persona seeks to challenge the right of defendants to initiate foreclosure on a trust deed secured by her residence. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend. We affirm the resulting judgment.

Appellants Apple American Group II, LLC, and Apple American Group, LLC, challenge the denial of their motion to compel individual arbitration of respondent Crystal Christman’s claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). They contend an agreement that Christman executed in connection with her employment with them obliged her to arbitrate her claim, or at minimum, her status as an “aggrieved employee” within the meaning of PAGA. We reject those contentions and affirm.

Armando Rocha and Javier Trujillo appeal from their judgments of conviction of first degree murder, with gang and firearm use enhancements. Rocha argues the court incorrectly instructed the jury that exculpatory testimony by an accomplice required corroboration. He also argues the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in rebuttal. Trujillo challenges the introduction of evidence of prior bad acts and the lack of a limiting instruction on the use of such evidence. He also challenges an in-court identification of him as a person armed with a gun during an uncharged robbery and a witness’s opinion about his gang membership. Both appellants ask us to review the sealed record of the in camera hearing held on a discovery request, and both argue cumulative error. We find no error requiring reversal and affirm the judgments.

Defendant and appellant John Silva Ramirez (defendant) appeals from his murder conviction. He contends: that the denial of his severance motion violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation; his codefendant’s coerced statements were improperly admitted; government misconduct resulted in a denial of due process; it was error to admit the victim’s identification of defendant as a dying declaration; the prosecution’s expert’s reliance on case-specific hearsay was error; jurors lost the ability to remain impartial due to inflammatory gang testimony and the intimidating behavior of defendant’s father outside the courtroom; and that the cumulative effect of errors resulted in the denial of a fair trial. Defendant also purports to join the arguments contained in codefendant’s as yet unfiled briefs in his separate appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment.