CA Unpub Decisions

After Aaron C.—who has been a ward of the court since 2014—admitted his most recent probation violation, the juvenile court recommitted him to the Youth Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) and modified his probation to include various gang-related probation conditions. Aaron appeals, contending these conditions are unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). We disagree and affirm.

Defendant Jamal Austin appeals from a final judgment of conviction following a jury trial. Defendant was convicted of threatening a judge in violation of Penal Code section 76, subdivision (a). He contends his conviction should be reversed because (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish that the language he used constituted a threat under section 76; and (2) the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to add pinpoint language to CALCRIM No. 2650. We shall affirm the judgment.

Appellant Edward W. Sim appeals from a judgment of dissolution. Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to require respondent Elisa M. Rah to appear at trial. He also argues that the trial court failed to consider the factors set forth in Family Code section 4320 and improperly relied on computer calculations in determining the amount of the spousal support order. We affirm the judgment.

This is a dispute between neighbors over the use of an easement comprising a right of way. Plaintiffs Cheryl and Thad Poland filed this action seeking to quiet title to the portion of their property burdened by the right of way. Plaintiffs argued that the easement appurtenant to their neighbor’s property—currently owned by defendant Peter Runyan—was abandoned in perpetuity as the result of litigation involving defendant’s predecessor to the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding that plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue of material fact regarding defendant’s predecessor’s intent to abandon the easement, which was not binding on defendant. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment. For the reasons expressed herein, we shall affirm.

In state court, plaintiff Mahmoud Ascarie filed in propria persona a complaint against Gary Lafayette, an individual, Lafayette & Kumagai, LLP, MJR Electric, and Michael Rauschnot. Lafayette, an attorney and a partner in the law firm of Lafayette and Kumagai, had represented Nationwide Mutual Insurance (Nationwide) against an insurance bad faith lawsuit filed by plaintiff in federal court. The complaint in this case alleged fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud against all defendants (first cause of action) and breach of fiduciary duty against defendants Lafayette and Lafayette and Kumagai, LLP, (together, the Lafayette defendants) (second cause of action) arising from Lafayette’s false promises and representations to plaintiff allegedly made to obtain dismissal of the federal lawsuit. The Lafayette defendants brought a motion to strike (an anti-SLAPP motion) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff appeals in propria persona f

Presented with evidence of three separate violent incidents involving three different victims, a jury convicted defendant Miguel Angel Vargas of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 1 & 5); mayhem (§ 203; count 2); misdemeanor assault (§ 240; count 4); assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 6); battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 7); and battery on a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (c)(2); count 8). Based on these convictions, a prior conviction, and various enhancements found true by the jury, the court sentenced defendant to 25 years in prison.

Penal Code section 1203.2a contains jurisdictional time limits for sentencing a criminal defendant after he has been committed to prison for another offense while on probation. The idea behind the statute is to afford the defendant the opportunity to obtain concurrent sentences in his two cases. In this case, appellant was deprived of that opportunity because his probationary court in Orange County failed to act in a timely manner after learning he was incarcerated in Los Angeles for a new offense. Recognizing that, the Orange County court refrained from imposing a previously stayed prison term and simply reinstated appellant on probation. Appellant contends the court lacked the jurisdiction even to do that, but we disagree and affirm the court’s decision.

Defendant Jonathan Flores Garcia was charged in an information with four counts of lewd act on a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts one through four) and one count of giving a minor an alcoholic beverage (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25658, subd. (a); count five), a misdemeanor. Each felony count alleged a specific act as the basis for the charged offense: kissing (count one), touching breast (count two), touching vaginal area (count three), and hand to penis (count four). The jury found defendant guilty on count one for kissing the victim, acquitted him of the remaining felony charges, and convicted him of the misdemeanor. The trial court granted defendant probation and ordered him confined in the county jail for 364 days. Defendant contends the judgment must be overturned because his counsel was ineffective. We affirm the judgment.

In 2014, judgment was entered in favor of Garden Grove Galleria, LLC (plaintiff) awarding over $11 million in damages against Cathay Bank (defendant) following a jury trial. The judgment provided that plaintiff would also recover “reasonable and necessary costs, in amounts to be determined pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, with interest thereon at 10% per annum from _______ until paid.” Both parties appealed the judgment on grounds unrelated to the issue of interest. After those appeals were resolved, and over two years after the judgment had been entered, plaintiff filed a motion under section 473, subdivision (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to correct what it characterized as a clerical error by inserting the date of the jury’s verdict (August 31, 2012) into the blank line in the judgment. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the blank line was the product of judicial action, not clerical action and thus Code of Civil Procedure section 473, su

Seeking more than $166,000 in damages, plaintiff Vitatech International, Inc. (Vitatech) filed this breach of contract lawsuit against defendants National Marketing, Inc., CortiSlim International, formerly known as National Marketing, Inc., CortiSlim International, LLC, and Alan R. Sporn (collectively, Defendants). On the eve of trial, the parties settled for a one-time payment of $75,000. As part of the settlement, Defendants stipulated to entry of judgment against them “in the full prayer of the Complaint,” but Vitatech agreed to “forbear” from filing the stipulation and to accept the $75,000 “as full Settlement of its claims against Defendants” if they paid by the designated date. When Defendants failed to pay, Vitatech filed the stipulation and the trial court entered judgment against Defendants for more than $300,000, which included compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs.

Jacqueline Rice appeals from the trial court’s order denying her request for attorney fees and costs. We conclude no abuse of discretion occurred and affirm the postjudgment order.

Appointed counsel for defendant Alonso Hernandez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On July 31, 2014, defendant, a truck driver, was driving a “big rig” truck while he had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.14 percent. He caused a collision, killed two people, and injured at least two more people. He thought he had killed someone, so he kept driving and fled the scene.

Appointed counsel for defendant Luis Miguel Barriga asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On January 11, 2014, defendant possessed a firearm while prohibited from doing so.
On January 24, 2014, defendant pled guilty to possessing a firearm within 10 years of being convicted for violating Penal Code section 243, subdivision (e)(1)
(Pen. Code, § 29805; count 1). Defendant was released on his own

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment against him in his action alleging defendant retaliated against him, as an independent contractor performing services for defendant, an employee of defendant, or an applicant for employment with defendant, for complaining of sexual harassment and discrimination based on race or national origin. Plaintiff contends the trial court improperly refused to give certain jury instructions, improperly admitted certain evidence over his objection, and improperly awarded defendant its litigation costs. Further, he contends opposing counsel committed misconduct by arguing in his closing argument matters unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. Defendant cross-appeals, contending that, if the judgment should be reversed as asserted by plaintiff, this court should review and reverse the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to bring the case to trial within the statutory time. We find no error in the judgment and therefor