CA Unpub Decisions

Maria Pinto (appellant) appeals from an order of the superior court entered after an evidentiary hearing in this civil harassment matter. Appellant filed requests for orders to stop harassment against Maria de Jesus Leon (Leon) and Jorge Flores (Flores) (respondents).[1] After an evidentiary hearing lasting five days, the trial court found appellant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondents engaged in unlawful violence, made a credible threat of violence, or engaged in a course of conduct that seriously alarmed or harassed appellant. However, the trial court issued limited orders directing respondents to keep their dog on their property and secured at all times; replace their outdoor security lighting to minimize illumination of appellant’s property; refrain from blocking appellant’s driveway; and refrain from allowing guests to gather outside of their home after 9:00 p.m.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant her petition for civil harassment order. We find no error, and affirm the order of the trial court.

The juvenile court sustained a petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleging Edward B. committed the misdemeanor offense of violating the terms of a restraining order. On appeal, Edward contends the juvenile court erred in sustaining the petition because there was no stay-away provision in the restraining order. We affirm the order.

Defendant Harry Haralambus appeals from an order awarding $143,861.87 in attorney fees to plaintiff Neenah Tran after she prevailed at a bench trial on causes of action for sexual harassment, assault and battery. Defendant contends the court abused its discretion when it awarded plaintiff the full amount of her fees, because plaintiff recovered only $22,625 in damages, plaintiff did not prevail on other causes of action, and her attorney fees were three times greater than defendant’s attorney fees. Defendant has shown no abuse of discretion, so we affirm the order.

D.B., the father of C.B. and D.B., Jr., appeals jurisdiction and disposition orders of the juvenile court following the sustaining of a San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS) juvenile dependency petition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)[1] We conclude, among other things, that the court's finding that DSS gave proper notice to Indian tribes under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) is supported by the record. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Darnell Maurice Morris (defendant) appeals from his conviction of two counts of kidnapping. He contends the admission of a 911 call, placed by an unidentified caller, resulted in a violation of his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. We conclude the contention was not preserved for review, lacks merit and that defendant was not harmed by the statements. We affirm the judgment.

Salvador Medina Tena appeals a judgment following conviction of second degree murder, with a finding of personal use of a deadly weapon during commission of the crime. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 12022, subd. (b)(1).)[1] We affirm.

A modification decision.

Landlord C & C Development, Inc., and tenant CBS Outdoor, Inc., are the successors to a lease whereby tenant rented a portion of landlord’s property to operate a billboard. Landlord sued tenant for unlawful detainer, claiming tenant had not paid rent or utilities due under the lease. Tenant abandoned the premises and tried to remove its billboard, which belonged to tenant under the terms of the lease. Landlord prevented tenant from re-entering the premises to remove the billboard, claiming ownership of the billboard.
The original unlawful detainer action was dismissed without prejudice, and landlord then filed this lawsuit, seeking damages for unpaid rent and trespass. Tenant filed a cross-complaint for conversion and declaratory relief, to determine ownership of the billboard. The cross-complaint summarized the previous unlawful detainer litigation between the parties. On this basis, landlord filed a special motion to strike the claim for conversion, asserting it arose from landlord’s protected activity in filing the unlawful detainer action. The trial court denied the motion, finding the gravamen of the cross-complaint was not the filing of the unlawful detainer, but ownership of the billboard. We agree, and affirm the order below.

Defendants and appellants Joel Vincent Childress (Childress), Kelsie James Palmer (Palmer), and Eric Gerare Allen (Allen) (collectively defendants) appeal their convictions of murder, attempted murder, and making a criminal threat. Childress contends that substantial evidence does not support his murder or attempted murder convictions, the finding of premeditation and deliberation, or the gang and multiple-murder special circumstances. Palmer and Allen contend that the trial court erred in refusing to sever the murder charge against Childress in count 1 from the remaining charges. Palmer asserts Aranda-Bruton and Crawford error[1] in the admission of a recording of Allen’s interview with detectives; and all defendants assert several instructional errors and join in the arguments of the other defendant to the extent such arguments might apply to their benefit. Allen contends that his 107 years to life sentence was cruel and unusual under the federal constitution. We reject Allen’s constitutional claim but modify his sentence to comply with statutory requirements, and reject defendants’ other contentions and affirm the judgments.

A jury convicted Uriel Garcia of attempted premeditated murder, with gang and firearm allegations found true. The trial court sentenced him to state prison for a term of life with the possibility of parole, with a minimum parole eligibility period of 15 years, plus a consecutive term of 20 years for the firearm enhancement. He appeals, claiming numerous evidentiary, instructional and sentencing errors. We affirm.

Martha E. Lowe and Ralph Kanz (collectively, the borrowers) sued a number of parties, including, NL, Inc. (NL), RPM Mortgage, Inc. (RPM), and Placer Title Company (Placer Title) for, among other things, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. NL and RPM (collectively, the mortgage companies) demurred and Placer Title filed a separate demurrer. The trial court sustained both demurrers with leave to amend and, after the borrowers filed an amended complaint, the mortgage companies and Placer Title again demurred. The trial court sustained these demurrers without leave to amend, and the borrowers appeal. We affirm.

Defendant Cesar Rodelas was convicted of numerous crimes following no contest pleas to a 45-count amended information arising out of three separate incidents of serious domestic violence against his former girlfriend. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, and did so on July 26, 2013. Upon independent review of the record, and after considering the points defendant makes in his brief, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Cottrell Broadnax, Jr., was convicted of false imprisonment, assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a loaded firearm in a public place, and possession of base cocaine. The jury also found defendant had 14 prior convictions, including eight serious felony convictions. The trial court sentenced him to a total of 205 years to life. Defendant contends the trial court made several sentencing errors—(1) that it wrongly imposed five-year enhancements under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)[1] for prior serious felony convictions on counts as to which no enhancement could be made; (2) that it wrongly found defendant had suffered eight separate prior serious felony convictions under section 667, subdivision (a), when seven of the convictions occurred at a single jury trial; and (3) that it erroneously failed to stay the sentences for false imprisonment and one count of the firearm possession charges under section 654.
The Attorney General agrees defendant’s claims of sentencing error are meritorious, and we reach the same conclusion.

After a jury trial, defendant Ralph Ojeda was convicted of murder (Pen. Code, § 187) for fatally shooting Hayward Brandon. On appeal, he contends that he was deprived of a fair trial when the trial court refused to declare a mistrial or exclude incriminating fingerprint evidence that was disclosed after trial began. We will affirm the judgment.
Defendant has also filed a petition for habeas corpus (H039769) arising from the same charges. We have ruled on that petition by separate order filed this day.