CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Kal Saechao 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).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
In February 2013, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence resulting in great bodily injury or death. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to five years eight months in state prison and released on parole on March 25, 2015. As a special condition of his parole, defendant was to abstain from alcohol; he also was to enroll in and successfully complete a substance abuse treatment program. He acknowledged those conditions with his initials and signature.

Defendant and appellant David Vasquez (defendant) appeals his judgment of conviction of assault with a deadly weapon. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On February 15, 2017, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Joshua Gradias of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) ) and found true the allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim during the commission of an assault (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Defendant admitted a prior conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Pursuant to section 1385, the trial court struck the prior conviction for Three Strikes law purposes and sentenced defendant to 10 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant did not file a brief or letter. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant Danisha Irvin appeals following her plea of no contest to one count of battery and one count of dissuading a witness. She argues the trial court abused its discretion by imposing restitution of $10,279.58 in medical fees incurred by a victim because there was no evidence that defendant committed a crime as to that victim. We uphold the restitution award because the order was reasonably related to defendant’s conviction and therefore affirm.

Defendant, Alvin Robinson, appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury trial. A jury convicted defendant of one count of first degree burglary in violation of Penal Code sections 459 and 461, subdivision (a). Also, the trial court found various prior convictions allegations to be true. (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 667, subd. (d), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment with a modification of the award of custody and conduct credits.

A Contra Costa jury found defendant guilty as charged of committing a number of sex offenses on three minors, following which he was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 32 years to life. There is no need to summarize the evidence introduced at the trial because defendant does not challenge its sufficiency, and because the parties’ briefs demonstrate that they are completely familiar with that evidence. We therefore proceed directly to defendant’s three contentions.

Plaintiff Mordechay Beck appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants NoBug Consulting, Inc., Moshe Shalev, and Irit Shalev on Beck’s lawsuit seeking damages, declaratory relief, and an accounting on his claims of breach of oral contract and fraud, which he brought together with plaintiff Luca Bovio Ferassa. On appeal, Beck asserts error in the superior court’s grant of summary adjudication on his contract claims and the sustaining of defendants’ demurrers on one of his claims of fraud and one of breach of oral contract, along with his request for declaratory relief. Finally, Beck challenges the award of attorney fees to the three defendants. We find merit in the last contention and therefore will modify the judgment.

A jury convicted Heriberto Velasquez of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); all further statutory references are to this code) with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1); hereafter § 186.22(b)(1)) for participating in a group beating of a fellow inmate at Theo Lacy jail. Velasquez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s conclusion he was one of the attackers depicted in a videotaped recording of the beating. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the gang enhancement, and he contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument that treated the gang expert’s reliance on a nonhearsay statement as if it had been admitted for its truth. These contentions are without merit, and we therefore affirm the judgment.

Alfredo Chavez was convicted of first degree murder and received a sentence of 25 years to life. His sole argument on appeal is that before imposing sentence, the sentencing court erred by denying his request to strike the factual recitation in the probation report. We will affirm.

In September 2014 Joanna Marie Yeary pleaded guilty to making a false insurance claim. (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(1).) In March 2015 the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence for three years and granted Yeary formal probation. The court ordered Yeary to spend 365 days in custody, awarded her 72 days of pre-sentence credits, but allowed her to be released to a residential treatment facility after serving 180 days in custody, including credits. The court also imposed various fines and fees.

Dung T. Nguyen appeals from a judgment entered on his conviction of burglary of an inhabited dwelling and robbery. He contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on self-defense and the victim's use of excessive force as defenses to the robbery charge and that there are clerical errors in the abstract of judgment as to the statutory basis for one of the charges and as to the calculation of custody credits. We agree that the errors in the abstract of judgment must be corrected but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Gregory Kimmo Kendrick appeals a judgment following conviction of possessing a firearm on college or university grounds, possessing a weapon on college or university grounds, carrying a concealed firearm within a vehicle, possession of a nunchaku, possession of a billy club, and driving without a license. (Pen. Code, §§ 626.9, subd. (h), 626.10, subd. (b), 25400, subd. (a)(1), 22010, 22210; Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a).) We affirm.

Melissa DeMarco (Wife) appeals postjudgment orders denying her requests that Robert DeMarco (Husband) pay her share of a settlement Husband reached with his former business partner without deducting attorney fees. We affirm.

Antoinette R., three-year-old K.C.’s paternal grandmother (the mother of her biological father), appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying in substantial part her petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to have K.C. placed with her or, in the alternative, to permit her to have unmonitored night and weekend visitation with K.C. We affirm.