CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Arthur Coleman appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents County of Los Angeles, Cecil Hambo, James R. Lopez and Carlos Jaen. We affirm.

Susan Bennett obtained a civil harassment restraining order (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6) against appellant Richard Hoffmann. Hoffmann timely appealed. Because he has waived any argument by failing to support it with meaningful legal analysis or a single citation to the record, we affirm.

The City of Wildomar, defendant and respondent, became incorporated on July 1, 2008, and also adopted a resolution approving the same general plan as the County of Riverside’s 2002 General Plan, as amended. Almost five years later, in April 2013, plaintiffs and appellants Martha Bridges and John Burkett filed a lawsuit contending the City had failed to adopt a general plan within 30 months of incorporation, citing Government Code section 65360. After a court trial, the court issued a statement of decision, ruling in favor of the City on the issues of the statute of limitations and laches. In a subsequent hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for new trial for the same reasons.
We agree with the trial court that the statute of limitations bars the action. Government Code section 65009 mandates that any action challenging Wildomar’s decision to adopt a general plan must be brought within 90 days of the general plan’s adoption on July 1, 2008. Furthermore, the

After petitioner T.W. (Mother) received over 24 months of reunification services as to her two-year-old son A.J., the juvenile court terminated Mother’s reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Mother petitions for extraordinary relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in determining there was a substantial risk of detriment to the child if returned to Mother’s custody. She also argues the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) failed to provide her with reasonable reunification services and that services should have been extended. We find no error, and deny the petition.

The Board of Psychology (the Board) revoked appellant M. Melanie Sapienza’s license to practice psychology based on violations of Business and Professions Code section 2960, subdivisions (h), (j) and (n). Sapienza petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate, seeking an order requiring the Board to set aside its decision. The court entered judgment denying the petition based in part on the presumption of regularity because Sapienza failed to provide it with a complete administrative record. On appeal, Sapienza purports to challenge: (1) the superior court’s rejection of her claim regarding the admissibility of patient C.G.’s testimony and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to support various findings in the Board’s statement of decision. A sufficiency of the evidence claim is unavailable on a partial record, and Sapienza’s assertion that the admission of C.G.’s testimony was prejudicially erroneous is also unavailing for this reason, among others. Accordingly,

This case involves a conspiracy on the part of defendant Miguel Plandor Venegas and codefendant Sami Hanna Antar —working together with and through its members Ricardo Duron, Ronnie Lee Fults II, Jose Montes, and Paulina Aguirre (sometimes conspirators)—to commit a series of residential burglaries in San Diego County between August 2012 and July 2013 (the conspiracy). Venegas was charged by amended information with 46 counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459 & 460, counts 1-13, 15-21, and 23-48); two counts of attempted first degree burglary (§§ 664, 459 & 460, counts 14 & 22); and one count of conspiracy to commit residential burglary (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 459 & 460, count 49). With respect to the conspiracy count, the amended information further alleged 157 overt acts and alleged Venegas suffered multiple probation denial priors (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)); one prison prior (§§ 667.5, subd. (b) & 668); two serious felony priors (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668 & 119

Defendant Christopher Leonard Trompeter pleaded no contest to four counts of spousal rape by force (Pen. Code, § 262, subd. (a)(1)) and was sentenced to a total term of 74 years in prison. He was further ordered to pay various fines and fees.
On appeal, Trompeter contends that the trial court erred in imposing a $129.75 booking fee. As set forth below, we find no error and will affirm the judgment of conviction.

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Sandoval asks this court to review the record to determine if there are any arguable issues in this appeal from the denial of defendant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

In May 2009, the Sonoma County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging appellant Matthew C. Mulholland with receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). The complaint identified the stolen property as a “COMPUTER, MOTORBIKE, and CHAINSAW.” According to the police report, the charge related to a March 2009 residential burglary. The stolen property was described as a computer worth $1,000; a chainsaw worth $300; and a motor bike worth $800. The police were subsequently advised that appellant had sold the chainsaw to another person. The purchaser identified appellant as the seller, and the owner of the stolen property identified the chainsaw as the one that had been stolen.

Defendant Tomas Morelos was convicted of attempted murder and assault with a firearm for shooting multiple rounds at an occupied truck. He challenges both convictions, contending there was insufficient evidence to establish the victim was inside the truck at the time of the shooting. Defendant further contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial, based on newly discovered evidence. We shall affirm.

In 1991, defendant Teresa Martinez was convicted by plea of felony grand theft (former Pen Code, § 487, subd. 1), and she admitted having served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed her on probation for five years. In 1994, her probation was terminated, and she was sentenced to prison for the previously suspended term of four years.
In 2015, defendant filed an application pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f), which was enacted as part of Proposition 47, seeking to have her felony grand theft conviction redesignated as a misdemeanor. At the time of her offense in 1991, grand theft included the taking of property valued at more than $400. (Former § 487, subd. 1, as amended by Stats. 1989, ch. 930, § 6.) The trial court denied defendant’s application to redesignate her offense as a misdemeanor after implicitly determining that defendant failed to show t

In 2013, defendant Todd Michael Haley pleaded no contest to two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code § 211) and admitted a prior serious/violent felony conviction (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). As called for by the plea agreement, the Monterey County Superior Court sentenced defendant to 12 years in state prison, to be served concurrently with a six-year sentence in Santa Clara County case No. C1113668. Nearly three years later, defendant filed an “Objection to the Sentence,” by which he sought to challenge his sentence in the trial court on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. Defendant appeals from the trial court order denying that objection.

At about 4:20 p.m. on April 24, 2016, defendant Donald Freeman and two other men entered a grocery store together and each pushed a shopping cart to the liquor aisle. They placed multiple bottles of liquor into the respective shopping carts, and then split up, going down separate aisles, each with a cart. All three left the store without paying. Defendant was detained by a loss prevention officer. The two other men fled in a vehicle. The liquor in the three carts was worth $1,287.28.
In January 2017, after his motion to substitute counsel was denied, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to grand theft of property exceeding $950 (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (a), 484, subd. (a)—count 1) in exchange for a stipulated county prison sentence of three years, with a split determined by probation, and the dismissal of the remaining count (conspiracy to commit grand theft) and allegations (three prior prison terms).

“On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (hereafter Proposition 47), which went into effect the next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).)” (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089.) Proposition 47 created a resentencing provision, codified at Penal Code section 1170.18, which provides that a person currently serving a sentence for certain designated felonies may petition for recall of the sentence to reduce felonies to misdemeanors. Defendant Bennie Edward Dickinson appeals from an order denying his petition to reduce a conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor.