CA Unpub Decisions

Jaron P. (minor) appeals from the juvenile court’s refusal to seal his juvenile records upon termination of jurisdiction. Minor contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying automatic sealing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786. He also seeks a decision holding that graduation from high school may not be a prerequisite to any future request for sealing his juvenile court records. While we find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s ruling, we decline to review a hypothetical ruling on a future petition. We thus affirm the juvenile court’s order.

This dependency case was filed more than three years ago when the Alameda
County Social Services Agency (the Agency) took C.C. into emergency custody after she
tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. A few weeks later, the Agency arranged
for a relative placement for C.C. with her maternal grandmother, M.R., who immediately
expressed a desire to adopt C.C. if reunification efforts failed. The dependency
proceedings were protracted primarily because of persistent resistance to, or confusion
about, the rights of C.C.’s father, J.L.

Defendant and appellant Louie Sergio Gutierrez (defendant) appeals from his conviction of possession of methamphetamine for sale. He contends that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct on two occasions during the trial, and that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object or request an appropriate admonition. Defendant also asks that we review the in camera hearing of his Pitchess discovery motion. We find that any prosecutorial misconduct was not preserved for review and that defendant suffered no prejudice due to alleged errors of his counsel. We further find no abuse of discretion in the trial’s court’s ruling on defendant’s Pitchess motion. We thus affirm the judgment.

Timothy Scott McGarry appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction by a jury of felony vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence. It placed appellant on probation on condition that he serve 90 days in county jail and pay $1,977 in restitution for damage he had caused to the victim’s vehicle.
Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erroneously “permitted [Deputy John] Popp to testify, over objection, as an expert witness about the possible causes of the damage to [the victim’s vehicle].” Appellant argues that Popp “was wholly unqualified” to render such an opinion.

A jury convicted defendant Jennie McAllister of one felony count of arson of the
property of another and one misdemeanor count of unlawfully causing a fire of real
property and vegetation. On appeal, she claims that the trial court erroneously:
(1) instructed the jury after the jury indicated it was deadlocked 11-1 on the first count;
(2) instructed the jury on the intent element of arson; and (3) failed to stay the sentence
for the misdemeanor conviction under Penal Code1
section 654. We affirm

A jury found Andres Rene Rodriguez guilty of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664 ) and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)). The jury also found true gang allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and firearm allegations (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (c)) on each count. Rodriguez admitted a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (c)(1)) and two prior prison terms. The court sentenced Rodriguez to a total term of 51 years.

These consolidated appeals arise from two probate orders made by the San Mateo
County Superior Court, orders that arise out of the settlement of a litigation essentially
claiming undue influence. The litigation had been the subject of several court hearings,
and the possible settlement had been the subject of discussion, including with the court,
for many months. One appeal (No. A144181) is from an order refusing to vacate a prior
order approving the settlement and the appointment of a professional fiduciary as
guardian ad litem for Maureen R. Sturgeon (Maureen or Maureen R.), an adult with a
developmental disability whose interest could be affected by the settlement. The other
appeal (No. A145115) is from an order approving the fiduciary’s first accounting.

David Crockett brought this action for whistleblower retaliation and disability and age discrimination against his former employer, the Regents of the University of California (the University) and others. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants. Crockett filed a motion for new trial, which the court partially granted, reviving the age discrimination claim. The University cross-appeals. We affirm.
The University hired Crockett and Chris Zbinden as parking enforcement supervisors in the office of Transportation and Parking Services (TPS). Crockett is over 40 years old and declares he suffers from epilepsy. Crockett and Zbinden reported to manager Jason Ziebarth. Ziebarth reported to the director of TPS.

This case has its origins in a species of shenanigans that led to the Great
Recession of 2008 – loans to uncreditworthy borrowers made purely for the fees and
commissions garnered by loan middlemen.1 In March 2003, Satish Shetty was indicted
in federal court for his role in a scheme to defraud Pan American Bank. Shetty’s scam,
according to the indictment, was to induce Pan American to make residential loans to
straw buyers (buyers who had no intention of actually buying the house or living in it) by
cooking up false documents, such as grant deeds, deposit receipts, and settlement
statements. Shetty would make money on the scheme by having companies he controlled
collect fees, commissions and profits on the funded loans. As federal prosecutors
ultimately structured their first superseding indictment in November 2003, Shetty was
charged with five counts of federal bank fraud (see 18 U.S.C. § 1344) and four counts of
money laundering (see 18 U.S.C. § 1956). He faced 230 y

Appointed counsel for defendant Jared Justin Marks 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. We granted defendant permission to file a late brief, but more than 30 days elapsed after our order granting permission, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm.

Appellant Oscar Alvarado-Penaloza was arrested in his neighborhood and
found to be in possession of a loaded, unregistered firearm. At trial, there was no direct
evidence as to why appellant had the gun or whether he was planning to use it. However,
a gang expert opined appellant possessed the gun for the benefit of a criminal street gang,
and the jury so found. The sole issue before us is whether that finding is supported by
substantial evidence. Although it’s a close call, we believe the answer to that question is
no. We therefore reverse the jury’s true finding on the gang enhancement allegations.

Defendant Eddie David Rivas was charged with the willful and deliberate murder of Mia Ramirez (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1); resisting an executive officer by force (§ 69; count 2); and misdemeanor battery (§ 243, subd. (a); count 3). The information also alleged defendant had suffered two prior serious felony and strike convictions: attempted carjacking and assault on a peace officer.
The jury found defendant not guilty of first degree murder, but convicted him of second degree murder, resisting an executive officer, and misdemeanor battery. The court dismissed the allegations concerning the prior attempted carjacking conviction, and found true the allegations concerning the prior assault on a peace officer conviction.
The court sentenced defendant as follows: 30 years to life for count 1, plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)); plus a consecutive six-year term for count 2; and a concurrent 180-day term for count 3. The court

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Julio Chavez pled no contest to one count
of violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), unlawful driving of a vehicle,
in 2006. On June 11, 2015, Chavez filed a petition pursuant to Penal Code1
section1170.18, seeking to have his felony sentence recalled and resentenced as a misdemeanor.
The superior court denied the petition on the basis a Vehicle Code section 10851
conviction was not eligible for resentencing. Chavez appealed and appellate counsel
filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant, Pedro Eusevio Anaya, appeals from an order denying his Proposition 47 petition (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a)) for resentencing on his 2008 convictions for receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant does not challenge the court’s denial of his petition but contends we must order the abstract of judgment corrected to accurately reflect his sentence. The People agree, as do we. We therefore affirm the order denying his petition and remand with directions to correct the abstract of judgment.