CA Unpub Decisions

L.J. Jr. (L.J.), who tested positive for marijuana at birth, was placed in protective custody after hospital staff reported his mother (Mother) and father (Father) were behaving erratically. Father appeals from both the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, claiming they are unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree, and affirm.

Jameliah Bates contends the court erred and abused its discretion when it denied her motion to withdraw her no contest plea to one count of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child of 14 or 15 years old and at least 10 years younger than her. (Pen. Code § 288, subd. (c).) Bates asserts she demonstrated her plea was based on duress and a mistaken understanding of its consequences, and that her attorney was ineffective in failing to investigate and declare a doubt as to her competency. We affirm.

A jury convicted Robert William Chung, also known as Bobby William Wilcox, of one count of bringing a controlled substance into jail. (Pen. Code, § 4573, subd. (a).) The trial court suspended execution of a four-year prison sentence on the condition Chung complete a residential drug treatment program.
Chung appealed. 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).) Chung filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record, and Chung’s supplemental brief, and we find no arguable appellate issues. We affirm.

Defendant Major Eberhart was sentenced to serve 91 years to life in state prison after a jury convicted him of first degree murder and other offenses. We affirmed the judgment as modified and remanded the matter for a retrial of prior conviction allegations and for resentencing. The Supreme Court granted review limited to the question of whether Eberhart’s “Sixth Amendment right to confrontation [was] violated by the gang expert’s reliance on testimony hearsay,” and deferred further action pending disposition of a related issue in People v. Sanchez, S216681. After the Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez), that court transferred Eberhart’s case back to this court for reconsideration in light of Sanchez.

On December 6, 2015, a marked police unit attempted to stop a car driven by Joshua Gabriel Chavez (Chavez). Chavez refused to pull over. Chavez drove through several red lights, narrowly avoiding other cars while reaching speeds of 80 to 90 miles an hour. On December 29, 2015, Chavez again refused to stop when another marked police unit tried to initiate a traffic stop. Chavez drove erratically and swerved into oncoming traffic while reaching speeds of 85 to 100 miles an hour. Chavez eventually stopped his car. When police searched the car, they found several torn plastic baggies on the driver’s side floorboard. When police searched Chavez himself, they found a baggie with approximately five grams of methamphetamine in his pocket. A prosecution expert later testified that this was an amount intended for sale.

Appellant Gary R., Sr. (appellant or Father) appeals the juvenile court order asserting jurisdiction over his two children, a 10-year old girl and a six-year old boy, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d), and the dispositional order removing his daughter from his custody. Father contends substantial evidence does not support either of the court’s orders. He further contends he was a noncustodial parent, and that the court relied on the wrong statutory provision in resolving the issue of his daughter’s custody. Our review of the record convinces us that the court’s orders were supported by the evidence, and that its reliance on the statutory provision covering custodial parents in determining that appellant’s daughter could not be placed with him was, at most, harmless error. Accordingly, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Andrew Acosta (defendant) appeals from his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, challenging only the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He contends that the arresting officer failed to articulate facts demonstrating an objectively reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in the unlawful activity cited as grounds for a traffic stop. Finding no merit to defendant’s contention, we affirm the judgment.

On February 17, 2016, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging that then 23-month-old C.M. was at risk of harm under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleged that B.M. had a history of substance abuse and currently abused methamphetamine, making her incapable of caring for and supervising her daughter. C.M. required constant care and supervision, and mother’s drug use interfered with her ability to provide that care. Remedial services had failed, as mother did not regularly participate in a rehabilitation program and random drug testing. C.M.’s health and safety were at risk.

Plaintiff Andrea Gordon fell on a stair while touring a home offered for sale. She brought suit against the homeowners and their real estate agent alleging premises liability and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, on the basis that the homeowners had no notice, actual or constructive, that there was any danger to the stair. Gordon appeals. We conclude the stair was open and obvious as a matter of law and, even if it were not, the homeowners had no notice of any dangerous condition. We therefore affirm.

Defendant and appellant Michael R. Norton appeals the trial court’s reimposition of a sentence of 21 years in state prison following his first appeal to this court. A jury convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)), and found true the allegation that he personally used a firearm in commission of the offense (§ 12022.5). The trial court imposed the upper term of 11 years for voluntary manslaughter, plus the upper term of 10 years for the firearm enhancement. Defendant contends, as he did in his prior appeal, that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on improper aggravating circumstances to impose the high terms, and by disregarding circumstances in mitigation. We affirm.

The jury convicted defendant and appellant Manuel Carlos Gudino in count 1 of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and in count 2 of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant had personally and intentionally fired a handgun in count 1 resulting in death or great bodily injury. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) Defendant admitted he suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d), 667, subds. (b)–(i).)

Respondent Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson, LLP (WCCP) alleged in this action, filed in September 2005, that after the firm successfully sued Marion “Suge” Knight and Death Row Records on behalf of label co-owner Lydia Harris, appellant Dermot Givens conspired with Harris and Knight to deprive WCCP of its contractual and lien rights to attorney fees by brokering a secret out-of-court settlement. In April 2008, the superior court found Givens liable and entered judgment against him. Nearly seven years later, in February 2015, Givens filed a motion to set aside the judgment as void under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), which the superior court denied.

Defendant Rudy Cosio appeals an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) following a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict against him and in favor of plaintiff Patrick Bulmer on Bulmer’s claim for equitable indemnification. Cosio contends this was error because he owed no duty of care to Bulmer. We affirm.

Beneficiaries under a family trust filed a “safe harbor” petition to determine if their challenge to the successor trustees’ administration of the trust would amount to a “contest” under the trust’s “no contest” provisions. In response, the successor trustees filed a petition for instructions concerning the applicability of a new law which eliminated safe harbor petitions. The trial court found the beneficiaries’ challenge would not constitute a contest and denied the successor trustees’ petition for instructions. The successor trustees appealed and, ultimately, our Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. (See Donkin v. Donkin (2013) 58 Cal.4th 412 (Donkin).)