CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant Marcel Williams guilty of second degree robbery and found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of the crime. The trial court found true several sentencing enhancement allegations and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 27 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a photograph displaying defendant’s gang-related tattoos and photographs of multiple hand guns. Alternately, defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude the claims are forfeited, conclude defendant received effective counsel at trial, and affirm.

Defendant Kevin Taylor appeals from a judgment of conviction. On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, stating that no arguable issue exists and requesting that this court independently review the record. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We affirm the judgment.

A workers’ compensation insurance policy was issued based on the express representation that the covered employer’s employees did not travel out of state. After an employee was injured out of state, the insurer notified the employer that it was rescinding the policy because of the employer’s misrepresentation and returned the premium. The issue of insurance coverage went to mandatory arbitration wherein the arbitrator concluded that, as a matter of law, the insurer could not rescind the policy and that the policy was in effect. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (appeals board) affirmed the arbitrator’s decision.
Contrary to the arbitrator’s ruling, a workers’

A jury convicted Debra Lynn Miles of the following crimes: murder, with the special circumstance allegation that it was committed during a burglary and a robbery (Count 1; Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 190.2, subd. (a)(17)); robbery, with the finding that it was committed in an inhabited dwelling and in concert with two or more persons (Count 2; §§ 211; 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)); first degree residential burglary with another person, not an accomplice (Count 3; §§ 459; 667.5, subd. (c)); and conspiracy to commit robbery. (Count 4; §§ 182, subd. (a)(2); 211.) On appeal, Miles claims the prosecutor committed misconduct and the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of second degree murder. We affirm.

Appellants North River Insurance Company (North River) and Bad Boys Bail Bonds (Bad Boys) appeal from a grant of summary judgment against them on a forfeited bail bond. They argue that the trial court should have continued the hearing on their motions for relief from forfeiture under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (j), and, alternatively, should have vacated forfeiture under section 1305, subdivision (f) because the criminal defendant was in “constructive custody” in Mexico. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment.

Appellants William E. Hellmuth and Lori L. Hellmuth borrowed $1,088,000 from Impac Funding Corporation dba Impac Lending Group (Impac Funding) in 2006. The loan transaction included a deed of trust securing the loan on real property in Salinas. In 2010 a “Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust/Mortgage” was recorded. The assignment stated that respondent Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) had assigned to respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) “as trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement relating to Impac Secured Assets Corp., mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2007-1,” “all beneficial interest” under the deed of trust securing the loan on plaintiffs’ property.

A jury convicted defendant, Jose Luis Brito, of permitting a person to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 26100, subd. (a).) The jury found true an allegation the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (d).) The jury acquitted defendant of a crime alleged to have occurred on an earlier date, assault with a semiautomatic firearm. (§ 245, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to two years in state prison. Because testimonial hearsay was erroneously admitted, and because this federal constitutional confrontation clause error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse the judgment.

Defendant Michael Anh Tran pleaded no contest to acquiring or retaining possession of the personal identifying information of 10 or more people with intent to defraud (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(3); possession of a forged driver’s license (§ 470b); and possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and admitted the allegation that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court placed defendant on formal probation for three years and imposed a six-month county jail sentence.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant.

Defendant Everardo Lalo Valdovinos pleaded no contest to inflicting corporal injury (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), and he admitted that he had one prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12) and that he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts, but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant.

Defendant Jose Guillermo Oriarte appeals from an order revoking his probation. He contends there is no substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that he failed to obey all laws as required by the terms of his probation and, alternatively, that the court’s order was contrary to the interests of justice. With some misgivings we shall affirm the court’s order.

Israel O. (the minor) has been a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) since 2014. In 2015, the prosecution filed a subsequent wardship petition alleging two felony counts of firearm possession by a minor (Pen. Code, § 29610). The juvenile court denied the minor’s suppression motion and found true one allegation he possessed a firearm (§ 29610). The court continued wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and ordered the minor to comply with various probation conditions, including the condition he “[b]e of good citizenship and good conduct.”
The minor appeals. He contends the court erred by denying his suppression motion. He also claims certain probation conditions are vague and overbroad. We strike the probation condition requiring the minor to “[b]e of good citizenship and good conduct.” In all other respects, we affirm.

Sheshe Miesha Strawder appeals from postjudgment orders revoking her probation and directing execution of a previously stayed county jail sentence. Strawder’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. Strawder then submitted a handwritten note and documents she contends demonstrate the trial court erred in ruling she had not satisfied the residential drug treatment program and CalTrans work conditions of her probation. We affirm.

Plaintiff David Daryl Jones, in pro. per., appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant City of Pasadena (City) after the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment.
Because appellate courts presume the order of the trial court is correct, the burden is on the appealing party to demonstrate error, which necessarily includes providing an adequate record for this court to conduct a meaningful review of the trial court’s actions. Here, the record on appeal does not contain the pleadings, the papers filed in connection with the summary judgment motion, or the reporter’s transcript from the summary judgment hearing. Without these documents, we cannot review the trial court’s summary judgment order. Accordingly, we affirm.

The underpinnings of this case are both tragic and well-known to Los Angeles residents.
On June 7, 2013, 23-year-old John Zawahri (John) shot and killed his brother, Christopher and his father, Samir (Zawahri) at their family home at 2036 Yorkshire Avenue in Santa Monica, California. John then set fire to the home. Officers ultimately cornered and killed John later that day in the library of Santa Monica College. Before he was killed, John shot and killed three more people and wounded several others. John had prepared a three-page handwritten note before his death; the note was found on his body. Therein, John expressed remorse for killing his father and brother, but gave no motive for his spree. He said goodbye to friends and expressed hope that his mother would be taken care of financially via his father’s estate. Investigators believed that John’s mental illness played a role in the killings.