CA Unpub Decisions

Elza Orin Pittman (Pittman) appeals from a judgment finding him to a be sexually violent predator (SVP) (as defined as in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq.) and committing him to the custody of the California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for an indeterminate term of appropriate treatment and confinement in a secure facility.
In 1958, Pittman pleaded guilty to fondling a nine-year-old boy (Pen. Code, § 288); at the time, Pittman was 19 years old. In 1959, just one year later, Pittman pleaded guilty to fondling two 13-year-old boys (Pen. Code, § 288).

Luis C. (Father), a resident of California, and Maria M. (Mother), a resident of Mexico, are the parents of Y.C. Y.C. was born in Mexico in 2006, and she had always lived there with her Mother. When Y.C. was nine, Mother allowed Y.C. to travel to the United States for a several-month-long visit with her paternal grandmother. During that visit, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) learned the grandmother allowed Father—who had a pending dependency case involving other children—to take Y.C. to his home, and that once there, Father refused to return the child to her grandmother. DCFS responded by taking custody of Y.C. and commencing dependency proceedings, which concluded with juvenile court orders awarding custody of Y.C. to Mother, directing the child’s return Mexico, and terminating jurisdiction. We consider whether the orders must be reversed because the juvenile court did not contact the court system in Mexico before making its final cu

Sandra R. (Mother) appeals from a February 2, 2016 juvenile court order declaring her children Vanessa M., Luis M., David M., and Angel M. dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and removing them from Mother’s custody.
After Mother filed her opening brief, the juvenile court, in an order dated August 2, 2016, returned Vanessa M., Luis M., and David M. to Mother. On August 18, 2016, the court terminated its jurisdiction of Angel M. The court granted Mother sole legal custody of all four children.
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. We conclude that the issues Mother raises are moot, and we dismiss the appeal.

Edris Issagholian and Richard Avakyan, former business partners who jointly operated two Sprint cellular telephone stores, sued each other after a falling out. Following a three-day bench trial, the court awarded Issagholian $35,000 for damages arising from Avakyan’s misconduct and $18,304 to Avakyan for wrongfully withheld commissions from the business. Avakyan appeals, arguing the court erred in finding him liable for $8,700 in misspent company funds and failing to award him additional profits. We affirm.

Saul Ambriz and Andoreni Lazaro Ocampo were convicted following a jury trial of second degree murder. On appeal Ocampo contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and raises a number of other challenges to his conviction, including improper instructions, evidentiary error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Ambriz argues only that the trial court improperly admitted gang expert testimony. We affirm.

Following a joint trial, a jury convicted Nicolas Olvera Cordoba of one count of first degree murder and Antonio Martinez of two counts of first degree murder and found true as to each of them specially alleged firearm enhancements and multiple special circumstances. In a separate trial following the court’s severance order, a jury convicted Arturo Rosales Verdin of two counts of first degree murder and found true a specially alleged firearm enhancement and multiple special circumstances. At a joint sentencing hearing, Cordoba, Martinez and Verdin were each sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The juvenile court denied J.T.’s (the minor) suppression motion and found true the allegation he possessed an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 30605, subd. (a)). The court continued wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), and committed him to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) for six months.
The minor appeals. His appointed counsel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We have reviewed the record and we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Adan Arriaga of four counts of lewd acts with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years of age (id., § 288.7, subd. (a)). Defendant challenges only his conviction of the latter offense, contending it was unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree, and we affirm.

Defendant Jahton Green, who had previously served a nearly six-year prison term for assaulting and robbing a 68-year-old woman, was found guilty of committing two counts of second degree robbery (the victims being 63 and 76 years old) and one count of elder abuse. He asserts four arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court prejudicially questioned him on cross-examination, depriving him of due process and a fair trial; (2) the trial court unconstitutionally lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof when it sustained objections to defense counsel’s argument concerning reasonable doubt; (3) the restitution and parole revocation fines imposed by the court exceeded the statutory maximum; and (4) a $250 probation investigation fee was improperly imposed.

In 1999, appellant David Rey Smith was convicted of five felonies: two counts of pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h, counts 1, 3), one count of pandering (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1), count 4), one count of lewd conduct on a child 14 or 15 years of age (§ 288, subd. (c)(1), count 5), and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 by a person over the age of 21. (§ 261.5, subd. (d), count 6.) The trial court sentenced appellant under the “Three Strikes” law to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life, consisting of consecutive 25 years to life sentences on each of the pimping convictions and concurrent 25 years to life sentences on the three remaining convictions.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant Timothy Patrick McClelland on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument in defendant’s own behalf. That period has passed. We have received no communication from him.
Defendant was convicted of violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), on July 19, 2011, and sentenced to three years in prison. On November 22, 2012, he was released on supervision, which supervision was scheduled to expire on December 6, 2016. On August 17, 2016, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) filed a petition for revocation of defendant’s parole. CDCR alleged defendant committed three violations. A hearing on the alleged parole violation commenced on September 30, 2016.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his action, entered after the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to bring the action to trial within five years. The trial court excluded from its calculation of the five-year period the time during which prosecution of the action was stayed by its order. It concluded, however, that plaintiff had not established any further period of time should be excluded on the ground bringing the action to trial was impossible, impracticable or futile at that time. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.

Robert Kniss (Kniss) sued his former employers, Teamsters Local No. 63 (Local) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (International). The complaint alleged causes of action related to disability discrimination, age discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, wrongful termination, and retaliation, as well as a Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim for Labor Code violations. Local and International (collectively, Teamsters) responded with anti-SLAPP motions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motions. Kniss contends the trial court erred. We reverse the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) She was placed on 36 months of supervised probation with various orders and conditions, including serving one year in jail.
Defendant challenges eight of her probation conditions. She contends that five of the conditions (conditions 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14) are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, two of the conditions (conditions 17 and 18) violate her constitutional right to freedom of association with her children’s father, and one of the conditions (condition 22) violates her constitutional right to religious freedom. The People concede, and we agree, that two of the probation conditions (specifically conditions 8 and 9) should be modified, and they are unopposed to a modification of condition 22. In all other respects, we affirm.