CA Unpub Decisions

After losing her underlying slip-and-fall case, appellant Anne Moore (Anne) and now her husband, appellant John Moore (John) (collectively appellants), sued Anne’s attorney, respondent Robert Hutchinson, for legal malpractice. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was granted and appellants appealed. We affirm.

Luis Ruben Catalan appeals the judgment entered in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number VA136273 following a jury trial in which he was convicted of unlawful driving/taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1); felony evading an officer with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 2); misdemeanor resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3); and two felony counts of resisting an executive officer (§ 69; counts 4 and 5). Following appellant’s admission of a prior vehicle theft conviction, the trial court found the prior conviction allegation to be true. The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of 6 years 4 months in state prison.

A jury convicted defendant Alvin Charles Smith of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), arising from an incident in a motel room involving the theft of cash from a man who responded to an online advertisement for prostitution services from Smith’s underage girlfriend. Smith contends two errors at his trial warrant reversal: he challenges as improper hearsay the admission of a police detective’s testimony about statements Smith’s girlfriend made in an interview concerning the incident, and he contends the jury was erroneously instructed concerning witnesses who testified under a grant of immunity. We reject both arguments and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs Michael Ramos, Lawrence Ramos, and Richard Ramos (collectively Ramos) appeal from a judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendant THC Orange County, Inc., doing business as Kindred Hospital-Sacramento (Kindred), in this elder abuse action arising from the medical care and death of Stella Ramos (decedent).
On appeal, Ramos challenges the special verdict form, the jury instructions, the exclusion of evidence, and the conduct of the jury.
As we shall explain, most of these claims are forfeited, either because they were not preserved in the trial court or are not properly presented on appeal, or both. None of the claims we discuss on the merits succeeds. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.

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.
Appellant is half Japanese. He contends that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of white supremacist tattoos on the bodies of the deceased and a complaining witness, Ashley Moss. His theory is that the victim and the witness were biased against Japanese people. In addition, he argues that the trial court erroneously modified a standard jury instruction on the reduction of murder to manslaughter and failed to instruct sua sponte that, when he shot the deceased, he is presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury. We affirm.

Appellant Omar Wright was convicted by jury of first degree willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, § 187; count 1), attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (§§ 664/187; count 2), and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count 4), with findings as to each offense that he personally used a firearm, personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death, and committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022.53, subds. (b) – (d)); he was also convicted by jury of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 3).
Appellant appeals the judgment entered following his convictions, asserting several arguments for reversal. We reject his arguments and affirm.

A jury convicted Dominic Williams (defendant) of first degree burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to 13 years in state prison. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike his 2011 conviction for robbery, which qualifies as a strike under our “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(j) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). We reject this argument, and affirm his conviction and sentence.

A jury convicted Patrick Williams (defendant) of various crimes arising out of three instances of domestic violence. On appeal, he argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence that his acts in burning his girlfriend’s chest and back permanently disfigured her, thereby precluding one of his two convictions for mayhem, (2) the trial court erred in imposing the enhancement for great bodily injury for the two mayhem counts because such injury is an element of mayhem, and (3) the abstract of judgment contains a clerical error. Only defendant’s final contention has merit. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction and sentence, but order that the abstract of judgment be corrected.

Jimmy Leon Villanueva appeals from a postjudgment order revoking his postrelease community supervision (PRCS). Villanueva argues the trial court erred by revoking his PRCS because the court order violated his First Amendment right of association. We disagree and affirm the order.

Ernest Grayson appeals from the trial court’s order denying his Proposition 47 petition to resentence as misdemeanors his seven felony convictions for theft of access card information (Pen. Code, § 484e, subd. (d)). (See § 1170.18, subds. (a), (b).) In appellant’s original appeal, we rejected his contention that his felony convictions qualified for resentencing under section 1170.18 and affirmed the denial of the petition. (People v. Grayson (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 454, review granted Jan. 20, 2016, S231757.) Appellant filed a petition for review, which the California Supreme Court granted and held along with several other similar cases.

A jury convicted defendant Edward Velasquez Garcia of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and found he had inflicted great bodily injury. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion to strike his prior strike. He also contends a $19,510.69 restitution order was unauthorized and must be stricken. We will affirm.

Anthony Y. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders removing minors A.Y. and V.Y. from his custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.) Father contends substantial evidence does not support the removal orders and the court should have placed the minors with him under a family maintenance plan. We affirm.

Appointed counsel for minor A.N. has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see also In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 119 [Wende procedure applies to appeals in juvenile delinquency cases].) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor, we shall affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

Defendant Lejon Dominic Mabon appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to first degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 213.) The charges arose on August 17, 2013, when defendant and his co-defendant, Brian Anthony Fosselman, entered a residence with guns and demanded money from the two residents there. Later that night police tried to stop an SUV that was moving without its headlights on. As they reached a cul-de-sac, defendant and Fosselman fled from the vehicle, leaving two passengers who identified them when police finally stopped the car. Stolen property was later recovered from the vehicle.