CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Kurita Jamison (Jamison) and defendant Linton McNeal Jr. (McNeal) are joint tenants of property that is the subject of this partition action (Code Civ. Proc., tit. 10.5, § 872.010 et. seq. ). Following a four-day bench trial, the court entered an interlocutory judgment in which it ordered the property to be partitioned and declared each party an owner of an undivided one-half interest in the property. McNeal appeals the interlocutory judgment on various grounds. We affirm.

This is an appeal from a final judgment following a jury trial that convicted defendant James Lee Wright of taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. Defendant has not exercised his right to file a supplemental brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we affirm.

Mira Kothari and Christian Michel filed a civil lawsuit against Ashok Desai and his limited liability company, MBKV (collectively referred to as Desai, unless context requires otherwise). In this appeal, Desai challenges the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to compel arbitration. He maintains the dispute falls within the scope of the limited liability company’s (LLC) operating agreement’s arbitration provision. Desai argues this agreement binds Kothari, who is a member of the LLC, and Michel, who is a nonsignatory beneficiary, to arbitrate their entire dispute. We conclude his contentions lack merit, and we affirm the court’s order.

Wife’s bartending shift ended at midnight, and she got into her Toyota Camry to drive home. As she drove away, Betancourt-Rayo drove up rapidly behind her in his truck. Wife stopped at a red light and called her mother to tell her he was following her. Betancourt-Rayo crashed into a car stopped next to Wife’s car. Wife saw her car’s rear window glass shatter and felt something strike the back of her driver’s seat pushing it forward. She looked back and saw bullet holes. Wife drove through the red light and called 911.
Wife drove evasively to avoid being shot. Betancourt-Rayo rammed his truck into the Camry a few times. After the last impact, Betancourt-Rayo lost control of his truck and crashed into a wall. Wife remained in the Camry because the driver’s side door was stuck; she was uninjured.
Meanwhile, deputy sheriff Jason McDermott responded to a call of shots fired involving two vehicles.

Appellant Andres Felipe Diaz-Guerrero and his codefendant Usiel Alcaraz were convicted of attempted murder and other crimes for shooting a man they were attempting to rob. Alcaraz was convicted as the shooter, and appellant was convicted under aiding and abetting principles. After we affirmed their judgments on appeal (People v. Alcaraz et al. (Apr. 7, 2020, G057009) [nonpub. opn.]), the California Supreme Court denied Alcaraz’s petition for review, and a partial remittitur was issued as to him on July 9, 2020. However, the Supreme Court granted appellant’s petition for review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider his case in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) (SB 775), which became effective on January 1, 2022.
In accordance with those directions, we vacate our prior decision as to appellant.

Appellant R.S. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s October 29, 2021 dispositional orders removing her six children, ranging from three to 12 years of age, from her custody and denying her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3), which allows the court to deny a parent reunification services when the child has been removed multiple times for physical or sexual abuse. After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. This court granted mother leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)
Mother filed a letter but failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the dispositional hearing. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.)

Appellant Johnny Chenda was sentenced to a lower term of two years pursuant to a negotiated disposition. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm.

Appellant Jose Andres Carrasco entered into a negotiated disposition and was sentenced to the second strike term of four years in state prison. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm.

On September 11, 2020, Jeffrey Michael Garrett was accused, by information of one felony count of unlawful driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and it was alleged that he had two prior serious or violent felony convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e).)
On October 29, 2020, after initially entering a not guilty plea and denying the allegations, Garrett pleaded no contest to the count and admitted both prior convictions.
On November 30, 2020, Garrett requested a change in appointed counsel. A Marsden hearing was held, and the request was denied.
At sentencing on January 8, 2021, the trial court struck the two prior felony conviction allegations and sentenced Garrett to the middle term of two years, with actual and conduct credit for times served. Various fines and fees were imposed.

In 1999, a jury convicted petitioner Christopher James Hearn of the first degree murder of I.T. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, count 1) with the special circumstance petitioner committed the murder while engaged in the commission or attempted commission of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)). For this offense, the trial court sentenced petitioner to a term of life without the possibility of parole. (People v. Hearn (Feb. 4, 2002, F034832) [as modified Feb. 27, 2002] [opn. ordered nonpub. May 1, 2002, S105347] (Hearn).)
In 2019, petitioner filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court initially found petitioner made a prima facie showing pursuant to section 1170.95 and issued an order to show cause. However, after a motion for reconsideration, the trial court denied the petition on the ground the special circumstance finding made petitioner ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.

In a 1996 court trial, defendant Ansel Leander Wickham was convicted of multiple offenses committed against multiple victims, including robbery and murder of one of the victims. The court found true multiple enhancements, including a special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery pursuant to Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)
In 2019, defendant petitioned for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437). The court appointed defendant counsel and the parties submitted briefing. The court initially set the matter for an evidentiary hearing, but it later granted the People’s motion for reconsideration. The court then concluded the record of conviction established defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Defendant Yeng Xiong was convicted of attempted murder and discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle. Following the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, asserting he was entitled to resentencing under the new laws. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The court denied defendant’s petition, concluding he was categorically ineligible for relief because he was not convicted of murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition and we previously affirmed the trial court’s order, concluding defendant was ineligible for relief from his attempted murder conviction because the plain language of section 1170.95, subdivision (a) limited relief to persons convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory.

In 2010, a jury convicted defendant Ronnie Joseph Zuniga of three counts of attempted murder and one count of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, and found true various enhancement allegations. Following the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, asserting he was entitled to resentencing under the new laws. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The court denied defendant’s petition, concluding he was unable to establish a prima facie showing he was eligible for relief. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition.
We previously affirmed the trial court’s order, concluding defendant was ineligible for relief from his attempted murder convictions because the plain language of former section 1170.95, subdivision (a) limited relief to persons convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory.

Richard Rodriguez Larios appeals from an order denying a petition for recall of sentence and resentencing on three counts of attempted murder. The petition was filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 as originally enacted by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437). In a prior decision, this court concluded the petition was properly denied because section 1170.95 afforded no relief to defendants convicted of attempted murder. The California Supreme Court has ordered the prior decision vacated and directed us to reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 775).
Senate Bill 775 amended section 1170.95 to expressly provide for the availability of relief to persons convicted of “attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).) The legislation also added a provision concerning petitioners’ entitlement to appointed counsel. (Id., subd. (b)(3).)