CA Unpub Decisions

Michael and Andrea Metzler married in 1997, had five children together, and separated in 2016. After a hearing in February 2020, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage and finding that Michael owed over $200,000 in child and spousal support arrears, largely due to his failure to pay support based on substantial commissions he earned between 2016 and 2019. After a second hearing in September, the court entered a second judgment that divided the parties’ assets and debts, ordered Michael to pay $650 per month in post-judgment spousal support, and awarded Andrea’s counsel $7,500 in fees and $2,000 in sanctions pursuant to Family Code sections 3557 and 271.
Michael appeals the judgments entered after these two hearings, stating that his “foremost challenges” are to the orders regarding child support, spousal support, and attorney fees.

Appointed counsel for defendant Alessandro Enrico Crotti has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Mark Alan Wright filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Casey Bernard Rodriguez guilty of manufacturing butane honey oil. In a subsequent bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found defendant’s prior serious felony conviction for bank robbery true. At sentencing, the trial court denied defendant’s Romero motion to strike the prior conviction. Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike his prior conviction. There was no error and we affirm the judgment.

Appellant M.I., appearing in propria persona as he did in the trial court, appeals from an order renewing a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued to protect his sister, respondent N.I., and others from appellant. Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support renewal of the DVRO. We will affirm the renewal order.

The jury found defendant not guilty of felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) but guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault, a misdemeanor (count one, § 240), and guilty of felony infliction of corporal injury on a former cohabitant (count two, § 273.5, subds. (a), (b)(2)), felony battery causing serious bodily injury (count three, § 243, subd. (d)), and misdemeanor violation of a protective order (count four, § 166, subd. (c)(1)). The prosecution alleged four prior convictions against defendant. In a bench trial, the court struck two prior convictions and the prosecution dismissed another. The court sentenced defendant to eight years, consisting of the upper term of four years on count two, doubled to eight years because of the remaining strike prior. The court imposed and stayed sentences on counts one, three and four under section 654.

After holding a hearing, the trial court issued a domestic violence restraining order against J.M. to stay away from M.C., the father of her child. (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) J.M., representing herself, appeals the order.
We are unable to provide a statement of the facts supporting the order because J.M. has not provided an adequate record of those proceedings. She has provided a clerk’s transcript of some of the filings in the case but no reporter’s transcript or similar summary of the trial court’s oral proceedings. An appellant has the burden to provide a record on appeal adequate to review the appellant’s contentions. (Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 623, fn. 1.)
J.M. now contends (1) the trial court erred by admitting evidence that had not been served on her, (2) she had never met the court commissioner who presided over the proceedings, (3) the domestic violence restraining order is not in the best interests of the parties’ child,

A jury convicted defendant Leo A. Carrillo of two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664 – counts one & four), two counts of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle (§ 26100, subd. (c) – counts two & five), three counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b) – counts three, six, & eight), two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1) – counts seven & nine), one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition (§ 3035, subd. (a)(1) – count ten), and a count of hit and run causing injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(1) – count eleven). The jury found true allegations that defendant personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm in connection with attempted murder and discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)); used a semiautomatic firearm in committing assault with a firearm as to counts three, six, and eight (§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d));

We review this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On March 10, 2010, a jury convicted appellant of first degree murder with a true finding of a criminal street gang enhancement. The evidence adduced at trial was that appellant, among others, stood on the street watching a fight between enemy gang members, one of whom was appellant’s boyfriend, Cesar Otero. Cesar’s little brother, Julio Otero, ran towards the scene of the fight, where he paused briefly. Appellant handed an object to Julio who then rushed forward and began fighting with a rival gang member, whom he struck on the temple. Blood gushed from the victim’s head; he fell to the ground and later died from a stab wound, which penetrated his brain. The wound was inflicted with a sharp object, such as a screwdriver or ice-pick. One witness testified he saw Julio get a “pointy thing” from appellant before he started fighting the victim. The object was metal and had a point.

Javier R. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition orders declaring his two children, J.R. and B.R., dependents of the court and removing them from his custody. Father raises several claims on appeal: (1) insufficient evidence supports the court’s jurisdiction finding that father’s acts of domestic violence against mother placed the children at serious risk of physical harm; (2) insufficient evidence supports the court’s order removing the children from father’s custody; (3) the court erred in issuing a restraining order precluding father from contacting mother and the children outside of court-approved visits; and (4) the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to conduct an adequate initial inquiry into the children’s possible Indian ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related state laws implementing ICWA (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.).

Father R.N. appeals the juvenile court’s custody order and order terminating jurisdiction over J.B., arguing he was found to be J.B.’s second presumed father, but the court’s custody order improperly characterizes him as a biological father. The custody order also does not accurately reflect the visitation he was awarded by the court. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services has filed a letter brief agreeing the custody order must be corrected. We therefore remand with directions to correct the custody order consistent with this opinion.

Defendant and Appellant Eric Ghayam appeals from a judgment against him for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to an oral partnership he formed with Plaintiff and Respondent Ghadir Amirnezhad to own and operate a restaurant called Garden Café. As part of the judgment, Ghayam was also ordered to pay Amirnezhad’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Ghayam asserts that the judgment must be reversed for the following reasons: (1) Amirnezhad lacked standing to prosecute certain claims against him, including those resulting in the damages award, because those claims belong to a corporation called The Garden Bakery Cafe Inc.; (2) Amirnezhad failed to verify his complaint as required by section 761.020 of the Civil Code; (3) the trial court’s calculation of damages was not supported by substantial evidence; (4) the trial court erred in admitting certain documents not produced in discovery;

After pleading guilty to first degree burglary, defendant Deandre Quinnine was ordered to pay victim restitution to Y.Y. in the amount of $60,000. He contends the trial court abused its discretion because there was insufficient evidence Y.Y. actually lost this sum and she did not appear at the restitution hearing or cooperate with defense counsel’s efforts to investigate the truth of her claim. We affirm.

R.P. appeals from an order granting the petition of the San Francisco Public Guardian (Public Guardian) to establish a conservatorship for a one-year period after the court found her to be gravely disabled within the meaning of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). R.P. challenges this order on the grounds that (1) she did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive her right to a jury trial; (2) substantial evidence did not support the order; and (3) she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to object to hearsay expert testimony. We affirm.