CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Rebecca Ann Kale has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

Following a joint trial, a jury convicted Ruben Ramon Guajardo, the shooter, and his cousin Gino Wayne Taylor, an aider and abettor, of the first degree murder of Victor Aranda. Guajardo confessed during the investigation and the jury rejected his claim of self-defense. Both defendants challenge the admissibility of Instagram posts on multiple grounds. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the social media evidence; nor did the admission of the evidence violate either defendants’ constitutional right to due process. We accept the Attorney General’s concession that Guajardo’s prior juvenile adjudication does not qualify as a strike under the three strikes law and remand for resentencing. We reject, however, the remaining instructional and sentencing challenges, and in all other respects, affirm the judgments.

Following a joint trial, a jury convicted Ruben Ramon Guajardo, the shooter, and his cousin Gino Wayne Taylor, an aider and abettor, of the first degree murder of Victor Aranda. Guajardo confessed during the investigation and the jury rejected his claim of self-defense. Both defendants challenge the admissibility of Instagram posts on multiple grounds. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the social media evidence; nor did the admission of the evidence violate either defendants’ constitutional right to due process. We accept the Attorney General’s concession that Guajardo’s prior juvenile adjudication does not qualify as a strike under the three strikes law and remand for resentencing. We reject, however, the remaining instructional and sentencing challenges, and in all other respects, affirm the judgments.

Plaintiff Donald Jesse Hill, a state prisoner who represents himself in this proceeding, sued his former criminal defense attorneys, who represented him in 1991, for professional malpractice, intentional tort, and breach of contract because, according to his complaint, they refused to send him his criminal file. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to Hill’s second amended complaint without leave to amend, and Hill appeals. We conclude the trial court properly sustained the demurrer and dismissed Hill’s complaint because he fails to allege facts to state a cause of action for intentional tort or breach of contract and because his professional malpractice cause of action suffers from several fatal flaws: (1) failure to state a cause of action because Hill fails to allege he was actually innocent of the criminal charges, (2) failure to file his complaint within the applicable statute of limitations, and (3) failure to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act. We the

On appeal, mother challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional order. (Father is not a party to this appeal.) Mother argues that she had rectified all of the concerns underlying the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition prior to the jurisdictional hearing. She also argues that the juvenile court should not have removed her three children from her custody or ordered her to take 10 random drug tests. We find no error and affirm.

In 2015, defendant Hariberto Guillen pleaded no contest to making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)). On March 3, 2016, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions.
At a restitution hearing held on May 10, 2016, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $92,146.42 to his employer Infinity Staffing, over his objections that: (1) the restitution sought by Infinity Staffing for medical, legal, and investigation fees related to his workers’ compensation claim was “out of proportion” to the “one misrepresentation” he had made during the course of his workers’ compensation claim, and (2) he should not have to pay restitution for the amounts Infinity Staffing paid to his workers’ compensation attorney. Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the restitution order.

Appointed counsel for defendant Omari Butler asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On April 21, 2015, defendant committed acts of violence against the mother of his son.

Appellant Christopher Pittman was convicted, following a jury trial, of battery, assault, and carrying a dirk or dagger. On appeal, he contends—and respondent agrees—that his conviction for assault must be reversed because he was convicted of battery against the same victim during a single course of conduct. We shall reverse the conviction for assault, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Charles Ernest Mosley appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after he entered a plea of guilty to robbery and receiving stolen property. He contends (1) the court erred in finding that police had a reasonable suspicion to detain him, and his continued detention became a de facto arrest not supported by probable cause; (2) the court should have dismissed the count for receiving stolen property or stayed the sentence on the count (Pen. Code, § 654); (3) Proposition 47 requires that the conviction for receiving stolen property be treated as a misdemeanor; and (4) we should review a sealed transcript regarding his Pitchess motion.

Minor Harold E. was placed on probation after the juvenile court found that he came within its jurisdiction by committing second degree robbery. The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether a probation condition prohibiting minor from associating with persons his probation officer deems as a threat to the successful completion of his probation is facially vague or overbroad. For the reasons explained here, we will affirm the judgment.

We affirm the juvenile court’s order asserting jurisdiction over E.C. (the minor), now one year old. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that there was a substantial risk the minor would suffer serious physical harm or illness as a result of the inability of her mother, A.C. (mother), to care for the minor, and that mother had left the minor without care or support. Although mother left the minor in the care of an unrelated adult, that adult’s unwillingness to cooperate with the social services agency, and later refusal to be considered as a caregiver for the minor due to her own health problems, support the juvenile court’s findings.

Cross-defendant Terry L. Fleming, Sr. appeals from a $3.6 million judgment against him and in favor of cross-complainant Havasu Lakeshore Investments, LLC (HLI) for Fleming’s constructive fraud in purchasing a loan on which HLI had defaulted and then foreclosing on the loan. Based on Fleming’s postjudgment conduct, however, HLI has moved for the dismissal of Fleming’s appeal under the disentitlement doctrine. That doctrine prohibits a judgment debtor from seeking “the benefits of an appeal while willfully disobeying the trial court’s valid orders and thereby frustrating [the judgment creditor’s] legitimate efforts to enforce the judgment.” (Gwartz v. Weilert (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 750, 761 (Gwartz).) The record reveals that Fleming has made repeated, deliberate, and obstructionist efforts to effectively stay execution of the judgment without complying with legal procedures.

Appellant and respondent are neighbors in an apartment complex. They have argued with each other at various times, generally over respondent’s grandchildren. Specifically, appellant accused respondent and his wife, Betsie Pesqueria, of urging their grandchildren to play near appellant’s apartment to bother him. Appellant also claimed respondent had threatened him with physical harm.
At appellant’s request, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order against respondent. The trial court then set an order to show cause hearing on a permanent restraining order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (g).
Following the hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s request. The court held that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof.

On August 22, 2014, after a jury trial, defendant Victor Vega was found guilty of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The jury found true allegations in both counts that defendant committed his offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and caused great bodily injury to the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). In count 1, the jury found true an allegation defendant premeditated killing the victim willfully and deliberately (§ 189), and personally used a weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
In a bifurcated proceeding, the defendant waived a jury trial on the truth of prior convictions. The trial court found true allegations defendant had convictions qualifying as serious or violent felonies under the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)) for second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)) and attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle (§