CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Brandy Lynn Campos asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We direct the trial court to strike the $500 domestic violence fine from the abstract of judgment and, finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, affirm the judgment.

Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a billy club. (Pen. Code, § 22210.) On appeal, he contends the magistrate improperly denied his motion to suppress. (§ 1538.5.) He also contends the trial court’s approved jury instruction erroneously instructed the jury the weapon possessed was a billy club. The People assert defendant’s contentions are procedurally improper because he failed to (a) renew his motion to suppress in the trial court prior to his no contest plea, and (b) obtain a certificate of probable cause on appeal. We shall affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Gerald Patrick Huebner of various drug and firearm related counts. On appeal, he first contends reversal is required because his cell phone was searched without a warrant. At the time of the search, People v. Diaz (2011) 51 Cal.4th 84, 93 (Diaz) permitted cell phone searches incident to a lawful arrest. But by the time of trial, Riley v. California (2014) 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2495 (Riley) held the opposite. We conclude the good faith exception applies because the officers were acting in objectively reasonable reliance on then existing appellate precedent.

Defendant Dontae Larail McFadden, together with Davonte Marlin Stinson, surprised S.A. as he sat in his parked car, robbed him at gun point of his wallet, phone and keys, and then forced him into the trunk of his car. They used S.A.’s keys a short time later to enter his nearby apartment where his fiancé, Ashley L., was home with their two young children. After robbing Ashley at gun point, they fled. They were apprehended a few months later.

Defendant Duewa Abeana Lee physically abused her incarcerated boyfriend’s 12-year-old daughter, C., over the span of two months. The abuse ranged in severity from striking the child’s hands with a spatula, to repeatedly hitting her with an extension cord, to burning her with various objects, including a pan defendant heated on the stove. As we describe in greater detail later in this opinion, these acts are merely a sampling of the torture the child endured.

Eric Bjorklund appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint against the County of Santa Barbara (the County) after the court sustained, without leave to amend, the County’s demurrer to his second amended complaint. We affirm.

A jury convicted Darren Moore of battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)), assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and attempting to dissuade a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true an allegation that Moore personally inflicted great bodily injury on his victim (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). During subsequent proceedings, the trial court found true allegations that Moore had two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)). It sentenced him to concurrent sentences of 25 years to life in state prison on the assault and dissuasion charges, and stayed sentencing on the battery charge pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The court also imposed a three-year enhancement on the great bodily injury allegation and five-year enhancements on each of the prior convictions.

J.W., the father of A.W., has filed a petition in propria persona, seeking extraordinary relief from a juvenile court order terminating family reunification services and setting the matter for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. Petitioner contends that the order was erroneous because he is incarcerated. He also seeks a stay of the order until he can make contact with the attorney who represented him in the proceedings below. As father has shown no grounds for writ relief under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, the petition will be denied.

In 2002 defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of discharging a firearm with gross negligence (Pen. Code, § 246.3), possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), now § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of an assault weapon (former § 12280, subd. (b), now § 30605, subd. (a)). He admitted the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant admitted three prior strike convictions and a prison prior. The minutes reflect defendant was “advised of the possible consequences of plea affecting deportation and citizenship.” Defendant signed a plea form and put his initials inside a box next to the following statement, “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States the conviction for the offense charged will have the consequence of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.”

Defendant and appellant Juliet Salcida appeals from the trial court’s finding she violated the terms of her mandatory supervision and sentencing her to two years in county jail. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

In a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), Louis and Donna Cruz (the Cruzes) sued (A) Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide) ; (B) Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), formerly known as the Bank of New York; (C) Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.; (D) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS); and (E) Does 1 through 10. The causes of action included (1) wrongful foreclosure (Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (a)(6)); (2) cancellation of a contract; (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200); and (5) “violation of Finance Lender[s] Law” (Fin. Code, §§ 22000 et seq., 50000 et seq.). The trial court sustained two demurrers against the SAC without leave to amend.

In these three consolidated criminal appeals, defendant Christopher Mancinas raises no issues in the first case, No. SCR498868; asks us to reduce his conviction on one count of cocaine possession from a felony to a misdemeanor and remand for resentencing under Proposition 47 in the second case, No. SCR590577; and in the third case, No. SCR595589, seeks reversal of his conviction for actively participating in a criminal street gang under Penal Code section 182.66, subdivision (a) for lack of sufficient evidence. We conclude Mancinas’s appeals in Nos. SCR498868 and SCR590577 are procedurally barred and affirm those convictions. We further conclude there is substantial evidence to support the conviction in No. SCR595589 and affirm in that case as well.

This is the third appeal in this case we have considered from plaintiff Fullerton Medical Group (Fullerton) arising out of its legal malpractice case against defendants Sideman & Bancroft LLP and one of its partners, Robert L. Leberman (collectively, “Sideman”). Fullerton had retained Sideman to provide legal advice regarding an antitrust claim against several health care providers: Brown & Toland Medical Group, Brown & Toland Physician Services Organization, California Pacific Medical Center, California Pacific Medical Services organization, and Sutter Health System (collectively, “business competitors” or “competitors”). It claims Sideman lost documents Fullerton entrusted to Sideman that were critical in proving its competitors violated antitrust laws. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Sideman.

Defendant Michael Anthony Rodriguez pleaded no contest to felony resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code § 69) and misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)). As called for by the plea agreement, the trial court placed defendant on probation for three years subject to various conditions, including gang conditions, to which defense counsel unsuccessfully objected. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $450 restitution fine. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, which indicated that his appeal was based on his sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.