CA Unpub Decisions

Antonio Hendrix appeals from a judgment following a jury trial. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. There are no issues requiring further review and we affirm.

Defendant contends the convictions for rape and oral copulation are not supported by substantial evidence; on the contrary, he insists the evidence demonstrated that as a matter of law he actually and reasonably believed the victim consented. Next, he contends that because the victim’s confinement was unbroken, he could be convicted of only one count of false imprisonment, not four. If these contentions are rejected, defendant argues the trial court erred in ordering the sentences for these offenses to be served consecutively.And he argues that a number of his sentences ought to be stayed by reason of section 654. Finally defendant argues, and the Attorney Generalagrees, that the abstract of judgment has a number of errors that require correction.

Cross-complainant David Dold appeals the entry of summary judgment against him on his sole cause of action requesting declaratory relief concerning the seniority of his alleged security interest in a one million dollar promissory note. He contends the trial court erred in concluding the deed of trust creating his security interest was invalid because it was never delivered. We affirm the summary judgment ruling on the alternate ground that, as argued by respondent, Dold’s security interest was time-barred, and thus in effectextinguished. That is an issue cross-defendant and respondent raised both below and again on appeal, but Dolddeclined to address in the briefing.

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding that the founders of a closely held corporation were subject to alter ego liability for the corporation’s activity. Michael Thaler (Michael) and Herb Leibowitz (Herb) founded California Trust Deeds, Inc. (CTD),a non-judicial foreclosure company in 1981.[1]According to the share certificates maintained by CTD, Michael and Herb were the sole CTD shareholders from 1981 onward. As of 1991, Herb was the sole director and officer. Michael remained a customer of CTD personally and through his business, and retained access to CTD’s bank accounts personally or through his son, who was his business partner, through 2008.

Defendants E.N. and C.B. (Mother and Father, respectively) appeal from an order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 terminating their parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for their two-year old son, M.B. Both parents contend the trial court erred by (1) determining the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to the termination of parental rights did not apply, and (2) failing to give notice of the proceeding to relevant Native American tribes as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). For the reasons explained, we find noerror and will affirm the order.

Defendant Victor Noel Vaca appeals from an order denying his Penal Code section 1170.18 petition to designate as a misdemeanor a felony conviction that was previouslydismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4. The Attorney General concedes it was error to deny the petition. For the reasons explained, we find the concession appropriate and agree the court erred. We will therefore reverse the order.

Defendant Jose Antonio Silva appeals his conviction of five counts of lewd or lascivious conduct on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on principles of unanimity. As set forth below, we affirm.

In his brief on appeal,Cavic makes no mention of any of the underlying orders, nor indeed of the trial court’s entry of judgment, except to note the bare fact that the trial court denied his judicial disqualification motionand allegedly entered the dismissal “without any explanation” beyond his failure to post security. Cavic does not directly challenge either of these rulings, nor the others listed in his notice of appeal. Instead, he uses his brief as a clarion call to the electorate. He states, “People of the Orange County, wake up, we are in the election year and we have a major job to do, to chase away all of those corrupted Santa Ana Court Judges, such as O’Leary, Aronson, Fybel, Bauer, Horn and Margines!!”
Because this claim is directed to the voters for their consideration, we express no opinion on it. As a basis for appeal, however, Cavic does not suggest in his brief that he raised his claim of alleged corruptionbelow to oppose any of t

Danny Cavic identifiesin his notice of appeal five underlying trial court orders he claims are erroneous. The notice also liststheeventual entry of judgment dismissing Cavic’s malpractice action against Gary E. Schreiber, Jerome D. Stark, Jerome D. Stark, P.C., other attorneys who formerly represented Cavic, and numerous other defendants. The trialcourt dismissed thecase after Cavic failed to post security required of him as a vexatious litigant.
In his brief on appeal,Cavic makes no mention of any of the underlying orders, nor indeed of the trial court’s entry of judgment, except to note the bare fact that the trial court denied his judicial disqualification motionand allegedly entered the dismissal “without any explanation” beyond his failure to post security. Cavic does not directly challenge either of these rulings, nor the others listed in his notice of appeal. Instead, he uses his brief as a clarion call to the electorate. He states, “People

A jury convicted Luther Pete Haynes of felony child molestation (Pen. Code, § 647.6, subd. (c)(2); all further statutory references are to this code unless noted). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court also found Haynes’s two prior convictions for lewd and lascivious conduct with children under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) constituted serious and violent crimes under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170, subds. (a)-(d)). Consequently, the court sentenced Haynes under the Three Strikes law to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison. Haynes contends the trial court’s failure to grant his pretrial motion to dismiss the child molestation charge violated his right to a speedy trial and due process. He also argues the court erred in a pretrial hearing by failing to preclude the prosecutor from offering evidence under Evidence Code section 1108 of his two prior child sex offenses. As we explain, these challenges to his conviction fail, a

Defendant and appellant Charles E. Turner was charged by information with 23 counts as follows: five counts of using personal identifying information of another (Pen. Code,[1] § 530.5, subd. (a); counts 1, 3, 5, 18 & 21); eight counts of burglary (§ 459; counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 & 17); five counts of making a false financial statement (§ 532, subd. (a)(1); counts 7, 9, 11, 14 & 16); one count of possession of a forged driver's license (§ 470b; count 13); two counts of failure to appear while on bail, with an allegation of a felony committed while on bail (§§ 1320.5, 12022.1, subd. (b); counts 19 & 20); one count of petty theft (§ 484; count 22); and one count of false personation, with an allegation of a felony committed while on bail (§§ 529, subd. (a)(3), 12022.1, subd. (b); count 23). The information further charged Turner with two probation priors (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)) and two prison priors (§§ 667.5, subd. (b) & 668).
Under an agreement, Turner

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant Todd Martin Wilkinson’s petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47. (See Pen. Code, § 1170.18.)[1]
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Defendant Billy Wess Henson appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1170.18 (unless otherwise stated, statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code) petition to reclassify his felony conviction for receiving stolen property (§ 496) to a misdemeanor. He contends the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for resentencing as it did not make the necessary factual determination. We affirm the trial court’s order.

Defendant Scott Richard Price, Jr., appeals following the trial court’s order denying his petition for redesignation of sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18. (Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He does not challenge that order. Instead, he seeks the correction ofa clerical error committed at the time of his original sentencing: although the trial court orally imposed four years of probation, the minute order wrongly shows that term as five years.
The Attorney General concedes that the minute order is in error, but asserts that defendant’s contention is forfeited because it is untimely and unrelated to defendant’s notice of appeal. The Attorney General acknowledges that if the contention is not forfeited, the relief defendant requests is proper.
Because we can and must correct a clerical error in the record whenever we become aware of it, the Attorney General’s forfeiture claim fails. We will order the re