CA Unpub Decisions

The juvenile court found that four children, now ages 13, 12, three and a half, and one and a half, came within its jurisdiction on the basis they had suffered, or there was a substantial risk they would suffer, serious physical harm or illness. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (a), (b).) (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise specified.) The court subsequently found that the children could not be returned to the custody and care of their mother (§ 361, subd. (c)), and that their mother should not receive reunification services (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6)).

Plaintiffs and respondents Ronald and Kathleen Brown sued their next-door neighbor, defendant and appellant Jose Douglas Fallas. After Fallas’s attorney was relieved and after Fallas’s motion to continue trial was denied, the matter proceeded to a court trial, at which Fallas voluntarily absented himself. The court found in the Browns’ favor and awarded damages. Fallas appeals. We modify the judgment to correct an error and affirm as modified.

Appellant is Linda Yi-Tai Shao, an attorney in the State of California, and is proceeding pro se in this matter. She appeals a child support modification order entered on May 3, 2013 requiring her to pay support to her ex-husband, Tsan-Kuen Wang, for the care of their minor child, L. The order at issue also involved an award of equitable child support credits pursuant to In re Marriage of Trainotti (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1072 (Trainotti) to Wang for the time period when he made support payments to Shao when he had full custody of L.
Shao raises eight arguments in this appeal, the bulk of which deal with her claim that the child support order violated her due process rights. Shao asserts that she did not receive notice that the court would impute income to her, and that the evidence did not support the order.

A jury convicted Sedric E. Johnson of mayhem (Pen. Code, § 203; count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). With respect to count 2, the jury found true allegations Johnson personally used a deadly weapon, specifically a knife, (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury on a person other than an accomplice (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the commission of the offense. Johnson pleaded guilty to having a prior prison commitment (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668) and admitted he was convicted of two prior felonies requiring denial of probation (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)). The court sentenced Johnson to eight years in prison for count 1. The court stayed punishment pursuant to section 654 for count 2 and the great bodily injury enhancement. It also stayed a one-year punishment for the prison prior.
Johnson contends the eyewitness evidence was insufficiently credible to establish he was the perpetrator of the c

Plaintiff Arnot Law Firm, APC (Arnot Law) sued defendants George E. Anderson and Jacqueline Anderson for unpaid attorney fees and costs incurred in representing the Andersons. The parties entered into a stipulated judgment of foreclosure and order to sell real property owned by the Andersons in order to satisfy the debt. This appeal is from an order denying the Andersons’ motion to vacate the stipulated judgment of foreclosure.
Arnot Law contends the appeal is moot because the Andersons’ property was sold at a foreclosure sale after a third party lienholder executed upon his own judgment of foreclosure. Because the property that is the subject of the stipulated judgment of foreclosure has already been sold, and because this court cannot afford the Andersons any effective relief, we agree that the appeal is moot and must be dismissed.

A jury convicted defendant Bernardo Jose Robleto of assault with a deadly weapon and related charges arising out of an incident in which he stabbed a victim multiple times during a fist fight outside of a convenience store. At trial, Robleto claimed he acted in self-defense because he used his knife only after he had tried to stop the fist fight and the victim, who was unarmed, responded with what Robleto characterized as sudden and deadly force.

A jury convicted Andre Vincent Jackson of premeditated murder (count 1; Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), and found true that he personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death and that a principal personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d), (e)(1)), and that the murder was gang-related (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). The jury also convicted Jackson of attempted premeditated murder (count 2; §§ 664; 187, subd. (a)) and found true that he and a principal personally used and discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (e)(1)), and that the attempted murder was gang-related (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Jackson to a term of 25 years to life on his murder conviction in count 1, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the finding that he personally discharged a firearm causing death. The court sentenced Jackson to a consecutive term of life on his attempted mu

A jury found defendant and appellant Salvadore Gutierrez guilty of nine counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) At a bifurcated hearing, the trial court found true Gutierrez had previously been convicted of two serious felonies (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668 & 1192.7, subd. (c)) and two prior strike offenses (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668 & 1170.12). Additionally, the court found that one of the prior convictions brought Gutierrez's current convictions within the operation of the One Strike law. (§ 667.61 (subd. (a), (c), and (d).) Accordingly, the court sentenced Gutierrez to 205 years to life in state prison.

Defendant was convicted of 20 counts of committing or attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14. In this appeal, defendant contends the trial court improperly allowed the prosecutor to argue uncharged acts as evidence of his propensity to commit similar crimes, but failed to instruct the jury on the use of uncharged acts as evidence of propensity. He also contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion in limine to preclude one of the alleged victims from testifying while wearing her military uniform. We affirm.

A jury found Yvonne Jessica Gutierrez not guilty of a charge of attempted murder (count 1; Pen. Code, §§ 664; 187, subd. (a)), and not guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion (§§ 664; 192, subd. (a)). The jury found Gutierrez guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (count 2; § 245, subd. (a)(1)), with a finding that she inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). The trial court sentenced Gutierrez to state prison for a total term of seven years comprised of the three-year midterm for the assault, plus four years for the great bodily injury enhancement. The court imposed regular restitution, fines and assessments. Hubbard’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment.

Spindler Engineering, Inc., appeals from a postjudgment order adding it as a judgment debtor on a money judgment against SEC Civil Engineers, Inc. (SEC). Respondent Randall Senter obtained the judgment against SEC. Senter moved to amend the judgment to add Spindler Engineering as a judgment debtor on the basis that Spindler Engineering was merely a continuation of SEC, formed for the purpose of avoiding payment of the judgment against it. Spindler Engineering contends the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion because respondent failed to introduce evidence, substantial or otherwise, in support of the motion.
The record on appeal contains the motion to amend the judgment, the opposition, the reply, and the trial court’s order granting amendment.

California Physicians' Services dba Blue Shield of California (Blue Shield) is a health care service plan subject to the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act), Health and Safety Code section 1340 et seq. Pacific Bay Recovery, Inc. (Pacific Bay) is a medical provider that treats substance abuse and narcotic addiction. Blue Shield contracts with certain medical groups and providers to provide medical care at reduced costs through a network of provider contracts. (§ 1342.6.) Pacific Bay had no provider contract with Blue Shield during the time at issue in this matter. Thus, Pacific Bay was an out-of-network provider.

Defendant Robert Enciso was convicted of grand theft of an automobile in 2005. In 2016, he sought to have the conviction reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. The court denied defendant’s petition, holding that the offense was ineligible for relief under Proposition 47. This ruling was incorrect as a matter of law, and we reverse.

A jury convicted defendant Dominic Daniel of second degree murder after he brutally beat to death his girlfriend, Tsega Tsegay, and the trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison. On appeal, Daniel claims that the court erred by (1) admitting general expert testimony about domestic violence and (2) failing to instruct the jury that this testimony was not evidence that he committed the charged crime. We affirm