CA Unpub Decisions

On February 26, 2004, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Henry Donald Flowers of driving in willful or wanton disregard for safety while fleeing from a pursuing police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and two counts of leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)). The trial court found true allegations that defendant had suffered two prior convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).[1] The trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life pursuant to the Three Strikes law.[2]
On March 22, 2013, defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence in the trial court, pursuant to section 1170.126.[3] The trial court issued an order to show cause, and the parties filed written briefs addressing the issue of whether relief should be granted to defendant.

Defendant and appellant County of Los Angeles (the County) challenges a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) following AHF’s successful motion for summary judgment, granting it a property tax exemption for certain real property that it owned and operated for charitable use. The County contends that (1) AHF’s motion for summary judgment was untimely, and (2) it raised triable issues of fact regarding the use of the property.
We affirm.

Aman Chaudhary filed a legal malpractice action against Howard Bartnof. On the morning of trial, Bartnof, who was representing himself, requested a continuance. Chaudhary opposed the request, which the court denied. Bartnof declined to participate in the ensuing bench trial. After hearing Chaudhary’s evidence, the court entered a judgment in his favor. Bartnof now appeals the judgment, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a continuance. We affirm.

In this appeal, counsel for appellant has filed a declaration stating he has reviewed the record in this matter and decided to file a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. He has written appellant and advised him of his conclusion. He told appellant he may file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues Fielding believes should be addressed. More than 30 days have passed and no supplemental brief has been received by this court. We have reviewed the record in this case and conclude the judgment should be affirmed. The appellant filed his notice of appeal on January 11, 2017, and it is timely.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Valerie H. (Mother) and Luis F. (Father) with respect to their two daughters, Elena and Andrea. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] Both Mother and Father appeal from that order, arguing the court erred in determining the beneficial relationship exception inapplicable. Father also maintains the juvenile court failed to ensure compliance with the notice and inquiry provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We affirm.

On April 3, 2015, Nick Julian Herran waived his constitutional rights to a jury trial, pleaded no contest to one count of mayhem (Pen. Code, § 203) and admitted the special allegation he had personally used a deadly weapon in committing the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)) as charged in the amended information.
At the time he entered his plea, Herran was advised of his constitutional rights and the nature and consequences of the plea, which he stated he understood. Herran’s counsel joined in the waivers of his constitutional rights. The trial court expressly found Herran’s waivers and plea were voluntary, knowing and intelligent.
The court sentenced Herran in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to a nine-year state prison term, consisting of the upper eight-year term for mayhem plus one-year for the weapon use enhancement. The court then stayed execution of sentence and placed Herran on five years of formal probation on condition he

Aurelio M. appeals from the juvenile court’s findings declaring his three children dependents of the court pursuant to a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[1] and from a disposition order. Aurelio contends substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding under section 300, subdivision (b), that his children faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm from Aurelio’s alcohol abuse. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services argues Aurelio’s appeal is moot because he does not challenge the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), based on Aurelio’s physical abuse of his children. The Department also argues that, even if the appeal is not moot, there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings and disposition order. We reach the merits of Aurelio’s appeal and affirm because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings and order bas

Defendant and appellant Joshua Dubose appeals from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for an order finding that defendant satisfied certain conditions of probation and should be released from custody. We reverse and remand.

J.Y. appeals from the juvenile court’s order of wardship based on a sustained Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 602 petition that alleged one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). On appeal, J.Y. contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding. We affirm.

Plaintiff Paul T. Wilkes appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition to compel defendants Metal Flowers Media, LLC, Tim Warren, Alevil Rincones, and Allen Vainshtein to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims arising from his participation in a television show, “Bar Rescue.”[1] The petition alleges that Metal Flowers is the casting company that “pitches potential bars for filming” to Bar Rescue’s producer, Bongo, LLC. Defendants Warren and Rincones are executive and story producers for the show, and defendant Vainshtein is Bongo’s attorney. To participate in the show, plaintiff signed an Appearance Release with Bongo, which contained an arbitration clause. Following plaintiff’s demand to arbitrate his claims arising from the show, JAMS ordered Bongo to participate in arbitration. However, because defendants are not signatories to the agreement, JAMS would not order them to participate absent their consent or a court order.
In support of his petition to

Plaintiff, Mitchell Anthony Productions, LLC, appeals from an order denying a Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 1286.2, subdivision (a) motion to vacate an arbitration award. Plaintiff sued defendant, Jennifer Hamilton, for: negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; inducing contract breach; interference with contract; defamation; and Business and Professions Code section 17200 violations. Defendant moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court granted. An arbitration hearing was conducted, at which plaintiff failed to appear. The arbitrator awarded in favor of defendant. Plaintiff moved to vacate the award. Plaintiff asserted the arbitrator failed to disclose disqualification grounds and committed fraud, misconduct and corruption. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion. We affirm the order.

Defendant Peter Todd Johnson appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of attempted first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a))[1] and shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246). Defendant contends the trial court coerced the jury into rendering a verdict by ordering continued deliberation after a deadlock was announced. He also argues that the court erred in denying his motion to substitute counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). We disagree and affirm.

Brandon Steven Lovato appeals from his judgment of conviction of two counts of attempted willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) with true findings on related firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d)) and gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). On appeal, Lovato argues that (1) the trial court may have abused its discretion in determining whether all discoverable material in the investigating officer’s personnel file was disclosed, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that Lovato was the perpetrator of the charged crimes. We affirm.

Mister Pukka, the real party in interest in a writ proceeding, has appealed from an order remanding the proceedings to defendant, Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission. The remand order directed reconsideration of a decision in connection with an employee discharge decision. Plaintiff, County of Los Angeles Probation Department, has moved to dismiss the appeal because in the administrative proceeding context, a remand order is typically not appealable. We agree with plaintiff.
A remand order under these circumstances is not appealable at present. (Hall v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 792, 797; City of Carlsbad v. Scholtz (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 294, 296; Village Trailer Park, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139-1140; Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 493, 501-502; Board of Dental Examiners v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1430; Kumar v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc. (1990) 218 C