CA Unpub Decisions

In 2002 defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of discharging a firearm with gross negligence (Pen. Code, § 246.3),[1] possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), now § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of an assault weapon (former § 12280, subd. (b), now § 30605, subd. (a)). He admitted the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant admitted three prior strike convictions and a prison prior. The minutes reflect defendant was “advised of the possible consequences of plea affecting deportation and citizenship.” Defendant signed a plea form and put his initials inside a box next to the following statement, “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States the conviction for the offense charged will have the consequence of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” On the same form, defen

Plaintiff David Elias sued his former employer, defendant Pacific Alliance Medical Center (Pacific), for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Elias alleged he was retaliated against for reporting thefts by certain coworkers. He was fired, however, when he gave a female coworker underwear as a birthday gift. The matter proceeded to a bench trial and, after Elias presented his case, the court granted Pacific’s motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8.[1] Elias appeals, contending the evidence does not support the judgment, and he challenges the subsequent costs award. We affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment after a bench trial in which defendant Arie Mazur was held to be the alter ego of Verdeo, Inc. (Verdeo). The court also found Mazur liable for fraudulent transfers. The court had previously granted summary adjudication against Verdeo for breach of contract and awarded damages to plaintiff Petro-Diamond Inc. (Petro-Diamond), in the amount of $2,550,000. On appeal, Mazur attacks all aspects of the judgment on both procedural and substantive grounds. We affirm.

On February 9, 2015, appellant Kevin R. Schrubb petitioned the superior court for reclassification of certain prior convictions in case numbers 274651-1, 277465-1, 293558-3, and 403687-7 from felonies to misdemeanors pursuant to Penal Code[1] section 1170.18. The superior court denied the petition. Schrubb appeals the denial as to case number 403687-7, a conviction for receipt of stolen property, contending the superior court erred in denying the petition on the grounds he had not met his burden of proving the value of the stolen items was less than $950. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant and appellant Juliet Salcida appeals from the trial court’s finding she violated the terms of her mandatory supervision and sentencing her to two years in county jail. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

On June 5, 2012, the Riverside County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (the First Petition) alleging that on June 3, 2012, defendant and appellant D.E. (Minor) committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a); count 1); resisted a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 69; count 2); defaced property with graffiti (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A); count 3); and on March 15, 2012, disturbed the peace (Pen. Code, § 415.5, subd. (a); count 4). The First Petition further alleged with respect to count 1, that Minor inflicted great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).)

In an information filed December 17, 2014, defendant and appellant Jose Guadalupe Gutierrez was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale under Health and Safety Code section 11378. A jury acquitted defendant of the charged offense and found him guilty of the lesser included offense of simple possession under Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). The trial court placed defendant on three years of summary probation. Defendant filed a timely amended notice of appeal.

In a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), Louis and Donna Cruz (the Cruzes) sued (A) Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide)[1]; (B) Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), formerly known as the Bank of New York; (C) Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.; (D) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS); and (E) Does 1 through 10. The causes of action included (1) wrongful foreclosure (Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (a)(6)); (2) cancellation of a contract; (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200); and (5) “violation of Finance Lender[s] Law” (Fin. Code, §§ 22000 et seq., 50000 et seq.). The trial court sustained two demurrers against the SAC without leave to amend.

Defendant and appellant Dillon Thomas Martin hid in the bushes at a house belonging to the victim and his family until the victim arrived home. Defendant told the victim it was good that he came home because he was going to kill the victim’s entire family. Defendant walked the victim to a vacant lot at gunpoint and held him there while he questioned him regarding the whereabouts of two of the victim’s friends who defendant believed beat up defendant’s brother. Defendant held the gun to the victim’s head and began to count down from five. Before letting the victim go, defendant head-butted the victim and shot his gun within a few feet of the victim.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Marco Antonio Pimentel, of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189),[1] possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)).[2] The jury also found defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death, with respect to the murder count. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The court found true that defendant had suffered a prior strike and prior serious felony conviction and had served two prior prison terms. (§§ 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b)(1), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) It sentenced him to a determinate prison term of 16 years plus 75 years to life in prison.

Defendant, Allen Keith Crenshaw, appeals from an order denying his Penal Code[1] section 1170.18, subdivision (f) resentencing petition. We affirm the order.

A modification decision.

On June 27, 2000, a jury convicted defendant, John Douglas Hunter, of: forcible rape (Pen. Code,[1] § 261, subd. (a)(2)); felony false imprisonment (§§ 236-237, subd. (a)); dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)); and several misdemeanors. Defendant admitted he was previously convicted of a serious felony. (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), (b)-(i), 1170.12.) He was sentenced to 25 years, 8 months in state prison. We affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Hunter (Nov. 19, 2002, B151487) [nonpub. opn.].)
On February 8, 2016, defendant filed in the trial court a coram nobis petition. Defendant alleged: the trial court induced him to enter a “guilty plea” to his prior conviction without advising him of his constitutional rights including his right to counsel; defendant was not present when he was sentenced; defendant’s lawyer was likewise not present; and the trial court failed to impose a section 654, subdivision (a) stay.

Plaintiff, Dennis J. Stankie, purports to appeal from the January 25, 2016 denial of a motion to correct or cancel the judgment resulting from a small claims appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.725.[1]) Plaintiff filed the motion to correct or cancel the judgment as a mandate proceeding. We have a duty to raise issues concerning our own jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) Thus, we issued an order to show cause and permitted the parties to argue the dismissal issue. We conclude plaintiff cannot appeal to the Court of Appeal from the January 25, 2016 denial of his motion to correct or cancel the judgment.