CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Wave Crest Holdings, LLC (Holdings) appeals from an order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction and granting the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 special motion to strike of defendants and respondents Wave Crest Owners' Association (Association) and current or former Association directors Scott Gray, Robert Munoz, Stuart Rosenberg, Robert Brosius, Jeanne DeVaney and Patricia Krusee. Association's members own interests in timeshare vacation property. Holdings had sued defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief, alleging in part that they failed to share a property appraisal and purchase offer with Association's members, disclose conflicts of interest, or call a vote of the owners/members about whether to pursue a sale of the property.

An information charged defendant Melbe Ponds-Johnson with assault with a deadly weapon and by force likely to produce great bodily injury upon California Highway Patrol Officer Finn (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)—count one), resisting Officer Finn by use of force and violence (§ 69—count two), resisting Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies Harrington and McCowan and Sergeant Polete by use of force and violence (§ 69—count three), and felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)—count four). Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.

Following a jury trial, defendant Michael Dwayne Baines was convicted of injuring a cohabitant in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a). The trial judge found true allegations that the defendant suffered two prior convictions for robbery in violation of section 211 and a conviction for prohibited possession of a firearm in violation of former section 12316. The judge struck one of defendant’s two “strike” offenses and sentenced him to a total of 8 years.

Defendant Marvin Lee Robles (defendant) entered pleas of no contest to, and was sentenced to prison for, two felony charges pursuant to a plea agreement. As part of that agreement, he was also sentenced to a concurrent term of 10 years for violating a previously ordered term of probation. He later filed a notice of appeal.
Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) requesting we independently review the entire record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. We notified defendant he could independently brief any contentions he wanted to have considered and gave him until July 6, 2017 to do so. He has not submitted anything for our consideration.

Veronica C. and her son Joaquin C. appeal the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction over Joaquin C. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and his removal from her custody. We conclude that the Department of Children and Family Services failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Veronica C. had failed to adequately supervise or protect Joaquin C.; to provide him with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment; or to provide regular care for him. The juvenile court’s finding that Joaquin C. comes within the court’s jurisdiction is not supported by substantial evidence. We vacate the court’s jurisdictional finding and reverse the dispositional order.

Appellant Kevin Cade appeals from a judgment entered following his conviction by jury trial for second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c).) Following our independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we conclude no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.

In 2011, plaintiff and appellant James Austin was convicted of 14 counts of wrongful sexual conduct with a minor and sentenced to state prison. In 2014, he filed this action against defendants and respondents Peter Carl Swarth and the Law Office of Peter Carl Swarth (collectively, Swarth), retained counsel who represented him before trial in his criminal case. Austin, who represented himself below and does so in this appeal, asserted legal malpractice and related claims concerning Swarth’s acts and omissions during and after the criminal representation. Austin appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained Swarth’s demurrer without leave to amend. We conclude all of Austin’s causes of action were time-barred and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Olga Figueroa-Manjang appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained a demurrer by defendant Dr. Daniel Behroozan to her second amended complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff originally alleged multiple claims for harassment, discrimination and retaliation by defendant, her former employer, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA)
(§ 12945.2), as well as for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. On appeal, she challenges only the dismissal of the public policy claim.

Antoine Fowler (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of transporting an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 12280, subd. (a)(1) ) and found true a gang enhancement allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The trial court sentenced appellant to 12 years in prison. He contends: (1) the delayed prosecution violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process; (2) the court violated his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 445) by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of his booking statement; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s true finding on the gang enhancement. We reject appellant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

P.N. is the father of the three children at issue in this dependency proceeding. The father has filed a petition for extraordinary writ challenging the juvenile court’s orders terminating his reunification services at the 18-month permanency review hearing (see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a)(1)) and setting the matter for a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing.

In December 2016, the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (Department) filed separate petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), and (c) relative to three children, K.K. (age 14), K.A. (age 7), and R.A., Jr. (age 5; collectively, the minors). The Department alleged that the mother, L.A. (Mother), had substance abuse and mental health issues, and the father, R.A. (Father), had a history of domestic violence. After a contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in February 2017, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the amended petitions, declaring the minors dependent children. It ordered the minors removed from the parents’ care and custody and ordered family reunification services for Mother and Father.

Defendant Leopoldo Manzo, Jr. pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon in exchange for the dismissal of other charges and a four-year prison sentence. On appeal, his counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asked this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified defendant of his right to submit a written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110 (Kelly), we will provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” We will further include information about aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Ibid.)

Defendant Vincent Paul Ramirez appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 16 by a perpetrator over age 21 (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d)). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436 (Wende) on behalf of defendant. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. We affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Juan Arteaga Gomez of one count of intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a)) and three counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years of age or younger (id., subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 70 years to life in prison and ordered him to pay $1,600 in restitution to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board). On appeal, defendant seeks to have his convictions for violating section 288.7, subdivision (b) reversed on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. He also challenges the restitution order as unauthorized. We shall affirm.