CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant William Martin Cresham pled no contest to one count of making criminal threats. He was sentenced to probation, and a protective order was entered requiring him to avoid contact with the victim of the threats. The court later found that defendant violated his probation by threatening to physically harm a roommate and violating the protective order, and sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison. Defendant appealed.
We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and conclude that no arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm.

A jury convicted Daniel Castano of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury found Castano committed murder for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The jury further found Castano personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d)). The trial court sentenced Castano to a prison term of 60 years to life.

Defendant Alvaro Carranza appeals from a judgment entered following his guilty plea to misdemeanor infliction of corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), and his no contest pleas to misdemeanor violation of a protective order (Pen. Code § 166, subd. (c)(1)), and felony theft of multiple identifying information (Pen. Code § 530.5, subd. (c)(3). Further statutory references are to this code.)
On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in imposing four gang-related conditions of probation, because his crimes were not related to gang affiliation. Defendant also argues that one of the probation conditions is unconstitutionally overbroad, because it impacts his First Amendment right to attend court proceedings. Finding no error, we will affirm the judgment for the reasons stated here.

Appellant was pulled over for speeding and arrested on two outstanding warrants. A search of his wallet yielded multiple fraudulent driver’s licenses, blank checks not in his name, and blank credit cards. Appellant was charged with nine felony counts: Identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) (counts 1-3), and counterfeit seals (§ 472) (counts 4-9). The information further alleged that appellant had suffered numerous prior convictions over 20 years (§§ 1203, subd. (e)(4), 667.5, subd. (b)).

Respondent Anaheim Union High School District (District) dismissed appellant Christopher Ontiveros from his employment as a public high school teacher. After holding an administrative hearing on the matter, which included documentary and oral evidence and spanned a total of 15 days, the Commission on Professional Competence (Commission) sustained the District’s dismissal of Ontiveros. Seeking review of the Commission’s decision, Ontiveros filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus in the trial court. The trial court denied the petition and entered judgment against Ontiveros.

Gladys E. (mother), the mother of four-year-old Isaac H., appeals from a juvenile court order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petition, contending the court abused its discretion by denying the petition without a hearing and erred in finding she failed to show her relationship with the child outweighed the benefits adoption would bring. We affirm.

In his lawsuit, Carlos Maldonado alleged he sustained a disabling lung disease, industrial asthma, as a result of occupational exposure to toxicologically significant levels of the chemical glutaraldehyde, used to disinfect medical equipment during his employment. He asserted Medivators Inc., the manufacturer of the disinfectant, was liable because it manufactured a dangerous toxic substance containing exceedingly high concentrations of glutaraldehyde without giving adequate warnings, especially after it formulated, manufactured, and sold an alternative product not containing glutaraldehyde. The trial court granted Medivators’s summary judgment motion on the grounds the lawsuit was untimely. On appeal, Maldonado challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to support the summary judgment ruling. We conclude there exists a triable issue of fact regarding when Maldonado first suspected he suffered an appreciable and actual harm and that it was a result of wrongdoing. We re

Plaintiff Richard Lenard sued GB Construction, Pedro Garcia, William Bartz, Walter Petroske, WGPDesign, JMS Construction and James Soto for breach of a construction contract on a room addition to Lenard’s home. Lenard attached his contract with GB Construction to his complaint. That contract was signed by William Bartz as the “representative” of GB Construction. Lenard’s grievance against the “defendants, and each of them,” was that they “failed to complete the remodeling project in a timely and workmanship like manner.”
The case went to a one-day trial before the court. It was established that the “GB” in GB Construction stands for “Gonzalez Brothers,” and Pedro Garcia’s full name is Pedro Gonzalez Garcia. (Garcia is his mother’s name). There was also no real dispute about the lack of completion. Garcia acknowledged in his own testimony it would take “around 50 grand” to finish.

A.S. appeals from the modification of his wardship terms and conditions and the imposition of a three-year criminal protective order (CPO) and a 10-year CPO, both backdated to December 2014. As discussed post, we affirm and order modifications to one of the wardship terms and conditions and to the 10-year CPO.

N.A. is the father (Father) of two girls, A.A. and E.A. (the Children), who were ages 10 and eight on the date of the challenged order, September 14, 2016. Father appeals from the juvenile court’s exit orders on visitation because (1) the orders do not specify the number of visits Father is to receive with the Children, and (2) the court required Father to pay for a monitor if he wants to visit the Children. We affirm the court’s orders, but remand with directions to the juvenile court to specify the frequency and duration of Father’s visits.

Plaintiff Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Fidelity) sought a declaration that it had no duty under a title insurance policy to defend or indemnify defendants William R. Butler and his wife Peggy L. Butler in a quiet title action brought by the Butlers’ neighbor because the Butlers had previously conveyed their interest in the disputed property to a third party thereby terminating any coverage that may have existed under the policy. The trial court issued the requested declaration after finding that the Butlers “failed to provide admissible evidence controverting a loss of coverage under the provisions of the title policy by [their] conveyance of [their] interest in [their] insured property, other than to claim, without authority, that retention of an easement was sufficient to keep the terms of the policy in effect.” We shall affirm the judgment.

Fillmore Senior Center, Inc. (FSCI), a senior citizens organization, leased a building from the City of Fillmore (City) pursuant to a written commercial lease agreement. The lease provided that either party may terminate the lease upon the giving of 180 days written notice. Nineteen years after entering into the lease, the City gave timely written notice of termination. The notice failed to include statutory language advising FSCI of its right to reclaim abandoned personal property. (Civ. Code, § 1946.) At no point in the proceedings did FSCI claim any loss of personal property. Section 1946 was specifically mentioned only after the City moved for summary judgment. Subsequently, FSCI amended its complaint to allege that “[n]o lawful notice [of the termination] was provided to [FSCI],” and the parties addressed the application of section 1946 in their trial briefs. The trial court, which held a bench trial on FSCI’s amended complaint, did not address the section 1946 is

Plaintiff Brayan Fernandez and plaintiff-in-intervention Everest National Insurance Company (ENIC) (plaintiffs) appeal a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Roger Spayde and Kristin Spayde. Fernandez alleged he suffered injuries while working in the Spayde home as a result of a fall. He alleged causes of action for negligence and premises liability. ENIC, a workers’ compensation carrier, filed a complaint-in-intervention for reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits paid to Fernandez. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment. Here there are triable issues of fact. We reverse.

Appellant Angel R. is the subject of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, wherein he admitted to four counts of lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). After numerous local placements over the course of five years, the juvenile court ordered Angel committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and to register as a sex offender. Angel contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to DJJ and ordering him to register as a sex offender. We disagree and affirm.