CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Charles Edward Jones appeals from the judgment following a court trial in which he was convicted of attempted first-degree murder (count 1) and child abuse (count 2). (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 189, 273a, subd. (a).) He raises issues of improper impeachment, prejudicial legal error, discovery violation, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.

A jury convicted Christian Almanza of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189 ) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)). The jury found gang enhancement allegations true on both counts. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) On the murder charge, the jury found a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court found Almanza suffered two prior strike convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds. (a)-(i)) and one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
The trial court sentenced Almanza to an aggregate term of 137 years to life.

Defendant Marvin Bonifacio was convicted by a jury of the murder of his girlfriend, Zuly Flores. On appeal, Bonifacio argues that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting Instagram images showing Bonifacio with firearms; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike his prior strike conviction. We affirm.

A jury convicted Vanessa Rebecca Celaya of second degree murder and robbery. She appeals, and we 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.

David Coury appeals from the order denying his motion to strike respondent Robert McCutcheon’s malicious prosecution cause of action under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) The cause of action is based on Coury’s earlier unsuccessful petition to probate what was found to be a forged will. Coury argues that McCutcheon failed to make the requisite showing of probability of prevailing on the merits because he improperly relied on speculation, hearsay, and a request for judicial notice of the contents of court records from the earlier probate case. We agree and reverse.

Gazelle Ann Benedicto, formerly Ingerson, appeals the superior court’s November 30, 2015 order granting the request of her former husband, Paul Gregory Ingerson, to renew a domestic violence restraining order initially entered in his favor on December 7, 2012. Ann contends the court abused its discretion in finding that Paul had established an objectively reasonable fear of future abuse in light of the parties’ changed circumstances and the lack of evidence of any further abuse after issuance of the initial order. We affirm.

Appellants Lamont Kellum and Eric Stocker appeal from a
judgment entered after they were convicted by a jury of first degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, possession of a firearm by a felon, and shooting at an inhabited dwelling. The jury found the firearm and gang enhancement allegations to be true. Appellants raise issues regarding insufficiency of the evidence, instructional error, and evidentiary error. We affirm.

J.W. (Mother) and A.W. (Father) are parents of A.W. and D.W. At the outset of this dependency proceeding, Mother and Father were living apart, involved in a highly contentious family custody dispute, and had joint physical and legal custody of their children. Upon a referral that Mother had placed the children in danger by driving over 90 miles per hour while intoxicated, the children were immediately removed from her custody and placed with Father. Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court sustained allegations of failure to protect and neglect by Mother. Following a contested dispositional hearing, the court returned partial custody to Mother and required both parents to avail themselves of services. By the time of the first family maintenance review hearing, Mother was not in compliance with the case plan, but Father was. Both the Yurok Indian Tribe and the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Social Services (Department) recommended that full custody be give

Christopher Miorelli and Trina USA, LLC, appeal from a judgment entered against them after the trial court sustained respondents’ demurrer without leave to amend and denied appellants’ motion for reconsideration. They argue the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and denying their motion for reconsideration, and urge that their complaint alleged facts sufficient to state all the pleaded causes of action.
We conclude that the trial court erred in entering judgment for respondents because respondents did not demur to the cause of action for suppression, and that the demurrer should not have been sustained with respect to the cause of action for breach of contract. We find no error with respect to the court’s rulings on the remaining causes of action.

Plaintiff and appellant Estela Zaragoza (Zaragoza) appeals from an order granting the motion to compel arbitration brought by defendant and respondent Sela Healthcare, Inc. dba Villa Mesa Care Center (Villa Mesa) and dismissing Zaragoza’s class action.
Zaragoza argues the arbitration agreement was void and obtained by fraud because she could not read English and did not understand the arbitration agreement. The law is clear, however, that a person cannot enter into a contract and then avoid it based on unfamiliarity with the English language. Furthermore, Zaragoza did not assert that she asked for a translation or that anyone at Villa Mesa denied her an opportunity to translate the agreement. Zaragoza’s opposition to the motion to compel arbitration failed to establish any fraud in the execution of the agreement.
Villa Mesa, on the other hand, submitted substantial evidence refuting Zaragoza’s arguments. The trial court’s ruling that Zaragoza’s signature on the arbitr

Perry Turner, individually and on behalf of his family trust, appeals from an order denying his petition under Government Code section 946.6 for relief from the requirement in the Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) that he timely file a claim with the City of Los Angeles (the City) prior to bringing a suit for damages. Turner argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition because, under the doctrines of delayed discovery and fraudulent concealment, his causes of action did not accrue until he discovered the wrongful acts committed by the City. Turner also asserts that he was entitled to relief under section 946.6 because any late filing of the claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. We affirm.

R.D. (mother) seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now 19-month-old daughter R.M. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Mother contends the appellate record contains false information and that her case was unfairly represented and adjudicated. She asks this court to independently review her case. We deny the petition.

A seller of residential property failed to disclose to the buyer that an unlicensed contractor performed renovations on the property. The buyer moved in and discovered several defects. After a bench trial, the trial court found the use of an unlicensed contractor was a material fact affecting the value or desirability of the property which should have been disclosed prior to completing the sale. The trial court awarded damages against the seller and its principal based on the cost to repair all defects on the property.
On appeal, the seller and principal contend there was no evidence that they knew about any of the defects, and there was no evidence that the failure to disclose the use of an unlicensed contractor caused buyer’s damages. The principal contends he is not liable, because he was not a party to the purchase contract. Lastly, they contend the trial court failed to remain impartial at trial, resulting in a violation of due process of law.