CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Gabriel Escobedo filed a civil action against defendant County of San Benito and several Doe defendants. Plaintiff later filed an amendment to the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 474 substituting Ray Avila and Abraham Arrendondo for Does 1 and 2. Following a motion by defendants Avila and Arrendondo challenging the amendment and seeking dismissal of the case against them, the trial court dismissed Avila and Arrendondo by a signed and filed written order. (See § 581d.) Notice of entry of the dismissal order was served on plaintiff on October 7, 2019. More than 60 days later, on February 14, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal challenging the dismissal of the individual defendants. We determine that plaintiff’s appeal is untimely, and therefore we will dismiss the appeal.

In 2014, a jury convicted petitioner Enrique Nunez Lopez of second degree murder under a natural and probable consequences theory, among other crimes. We affirmed Lopez’s convictions on direct appeal (People v. Lopez (May 31, 2018, H042227) [nonpub. opn.]) (case No. H042227). Subsequently, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), which eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder. Senate Bill No. 1437 also enacted Penal Code section 1170.95, which permits a person convicted of murder under certain theories, including natural and probable consequences, to petition the sentencing court to have his or her murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts.

On July 3, 2006, a jury found defendant and appellant Shawn Boyd guilty of (1) second degree murder under Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a), a lesser included offense of first degree murder, with enhancements for use of a firearm under section 12022.53, subdivision (b), discharge of a firearm under section 12022.53, subdivision (c), and discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury or death under section 12022.53, subdivision (d); and (2) three counts of assault with a firearm under section 245, subdivision (a)(2). Defendant also admitted one strike offense under sections 667, subdivisions (c) through (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).

As part of a plea bargain, Tevine Taj Simpson pleaded no contest to one felony count of using personal identifying information without authorization (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)), in exchange for receiving the lower-term sentence of 16 months. The plea agreement included a “Cruz waiver” by which Simpson agreed that if he failed to appear for sentencing, the court could impose a more severe sentence than the agreed-upon one. After Simpson repeatedly failed to appear in court as ordered, the trial court imposed the three-year upper-term sentence without stating its reasons for doing so.
Simpson raises two challenges on appeal. First, he contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper-term sentence. To the extent Simpson bases this claim on the trial court’s failure to state the reasons for its sentencing decision, Simpson has forfeited the challenge by failing to raise the ground at sentencing.

After cutting his ex-girlfriend with a knife, Christopher Contreras pled guilty to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury involving domestic violence (Pen. Code , §§ 245, subd. (a)(4), 1203.097). The superior court suspended imposing sentence and placed Contreras on three years’ formal probation.
On appeal, Contreras challenges several conditions of his probation. One (condition 6n) requires that he submit his cell phone to warrantless search. Based on In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122 (Ricardo P.), we conclude the cell phone search condition is invalid. But we reject on forfeiture grounds his other challenges to conditions requiring (1) that he submit other electronic devices to search; and (2) that he participate in “treatment, therapy, counseling, or other course of conduct as suggested by validated assessments tests.”
The trial court also imposed various fees and assessments.

In February 2021, Chase Ryan Gomez pleaded guilty to one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The court accepted the plea agreement and placed Gomez on probation for two years, subject to various terms and conditions.
At the sentencing hearing, Gomez objected to several proposed conditions. Among those objected to were a condition forbidding use of alcohol and one forbidding the use or possession of marijuana. Neither substance played any part in the events involved in the offense. The court struck the alcohol condition but declined to strike the marijuana condition. The only discernable difference apparent in the record is the statement of the probation officer that Probation did not think it appropriate for people on probation to possess marijuana.
Gomez appeals, challenging only the decision to impose the marijuana condition of probation.

Trust beneficiary John Stalnaker, Jr. (John Jr.) appeals an order granting a motion to quash service of his petition for a trust accounting and discharge/surcharge of trustee Carole Cupp (Carole). The trial court determined it did not have personal jurisdiction over Carole, an 83-year old resident of Tennessee. We agree with the trial court. Therefore, we affirm the challenged order.

This is the latest chapter in a decade-old saga concerning the validity of the Citizens’ Pension Reform Initiative (hereafter, the Initiative), a voter-approved measure that eliminated defined-pension benefits for most new City of San Diego employees and replaced them with defined-contribution 401(k)-style plans. In a prior case, the Supreme Court concluded San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (the Act; Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq.) by sponsoring the Initiative and failing to meet and confer with the unions that represent city employees affected by the Initiative. (Boling v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898 (Boling I).)
In this quo warranto proceeding, the city employee unions (hereafter, the Unions) sued the city and its city council (together, the City) to invalidate the Initiative based on Sanders’s violation of the Act.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael James Phillips 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.) Finding no arguable error in defendant’s favor, we affirm.

M.L. (mother) and B.D. (father), parents of the two minors, appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 366.26, 395.) The parents challenge the court’s finding of adoptability. We will affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

A jury found defendant guilty of burglarizing two storage units -- the Olive Grove storage unit and the Fig Lane storage unit. The jury further found defendant guilty of misdemeanor vandalism for damaging the door to the Fig Lane storage unit, but found him not guilty of vandalizing the door to the Olive Grove storage unit. Defendant also admitted he had previously been convicted of a strike offense. After granting defendant’s motion to dismiss his prior strike as to one of his felony convictions, the trial court sentenced defendant to six years eight months in prison and imposed various fines and fees.
Defendant appeals arguing there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction for burglary of the Olive Grove storage unit. He also argues the court committed two incidents of instructional error and erroneously denied his motion for a mistrial.

After appellants Steven and Beverly Faro (Buyers) purchased a home from respondent Robert Garnero (Seller), a dispute arose regarding Seller’s disclosures to Buyers. An arbitrator ruled for Seller, and awarded attorney fees to him as the prevailing party in the arbitration. The trial court granted Seller’s petition to confirm the arbitration awards. On appeal, Buyers argue the arbitrator exceeded his powers by: (1) violating their statutory rights; (2) acting in a manner not authorized by the parties’ residential purchase agreement (Agreement); (3) deciding an issue not submitted to arbitration; and (4) remaking the Agreement.
We affirm, and deny Seller’s motion for sanctions on appeal.

In August 2011, a jury found defendant Christina Martinez guilty of first degree murder, robbery, and burglary and found true robbery-murder and burglary-murder special circumstances. On appeal, this court affirmed defendant’s murder conviction but vacated the robbery and burglary convictions because the charges were untimely brought. In January 2019, defendant petitioned the trial court for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 based on changes made to the felony-murder rule by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437). The trial court denied defendant’s petition at the prima facie stage, finding the record established defendant was ineligible for resentencing on multiple grounds. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in summarily denying her petition. We disagree and affirm.

In 1987, the trial court found defendant Henry Purcell not guilty by reason of insanity of assault with intent to commit rape and ordered him committed to a state hospital for a maximum of six years. The trial court has granted successive petitions extending defendant’s commitment by two-year terms. In 2020, the People filed the latest such petition. Upon a jury verdict that defendant suffered from a mental disease, defect, or disorder, and that, as a result thereof, he posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others and had serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior, the trial court granted the petition, extending defendant’s commitment by two years. On appeal, defendant asserts the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.