CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Cyrus Hekmat sued his cousin Jonathan Mahboubi, Candice Hassid, and MidFirst Bank, among others, alleging claims arising from a loan plaintiff made to Mr. Mahboubi. Plaintiff alleged Mr. Mahboubi made misrepresentations to induce him to make the loan.

Defendants Marc Williams and Cobert Davis appeal the summary denial of their petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. We conclude defendants’ petitions should not have been denied as a matter of law, and remand for the court to appoint counsel and determine defendants’ eligibility for relief under the statute.

Defendant Quinntez Woodson appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to strike a three-year firearm enhancement imposed under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a). He contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give adequate consideration to mitigating factors that justified striking the enhancement in the interest of justice. We conclude the trial court’s decision was squarely within the bounds of its discretion and affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend on the ground the case is barred by the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in Government Code section 66499.37. We reverse.

This is an appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders in a dependency matter involving defendant, Shawna M. (mother), and her daughter Summer B. (minor). Mother contends the court’s decision to bypass her for reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) was not supported by substantial evidence. She further contends the court abused its discretion in finding reunification would not be in minor’s best interests. We disagree with mother and affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant California Finest 420, Inc. (California Finest), appeals the sustaining of a demurrer to its complaint alleging breach of contract and fraud stemming from a 2015 licensing and promotion agreement (agreement) with defendants Cookies SF LLC (Cookies) and Gilbert Milam, Jr. (Milam) (together, defendants). The parties disagree over whether defendants’ sale of shares of California Finest in 2017 terminated the agreement by its own terms so that no claim for breach could be stated based on subsequent actions.

Appellant A.O. (Father) is the father of the four-year-old child Juliet O. (the child), who is the subject of a dependency case. Father challenges the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing that resulted in the removal of the child from Father’s custody. Father contends the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings are not supported by substantial evidence. He also asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it required him to submit to drug testing and potential substance abuse counseling. We affirm.

Appellant Reyes James Carrillo was convicted by jury of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). In addition, the jury found true enhancements alleging Carrillo committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), and that Carrillo had inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Carrillo admitted he had suffered two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1) & (b)-(j), 1170.12, subd. (b)) and two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 25 years to life, plus 20 years.

In June 2019, defendant Prentice Foreman was convicted by a jury of first degree murder for the January 1979 killing of Dawn Ellen Koons. He raises eight issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in excluding third party culpability evidence and prohibiting impeachment of the primary alternative suspect, Dawn’s ex-boyfriend; (2) the trial court erred in denying a continuance for the defense to secure the testimony of Dawn’s brother, or, alternatively, counsel was ineffective for failing to timely secure her brother’s appearance; (3) the trial court erred in admitting expert opinion testimony that (i) the killer sexually assaulted Dawn in the course of a sexually motivated homicide, and that (ii) it was not reasonable to think Dawn had sexual intercourse with one person before a different person killed her; (4) there was insufficient foundation to admit DNA evidence that showed Foreman’s sperm was found on slides containing material swabbed from Dawn’s vagina; (5) the trial

Appellant Oscar Sanchez-Garcia was convicted of one count of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) for threatening to kill his mother. He was sentenced to the second strike term of six years in prison.

Nine years ago, defendant Christian Abraham Soto pled guilty to attempted murder under an aiding and abetting theory in lieu of trial. After the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), defendant petitioned for relief in the trial court under Penal Code section 1170.95, but the court denied his petition for failure to state a prima facie case since defendant entered a plea to attempted murder as opposed to murder. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) On appeal, defendant contended the trial court erred in denying his petition because due process and equal protection required extension of the petitioning procedure provided for in section 1170.95 to defendants, like him, who were convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In our initial opinion we affirmed the court’s order denying defendant’s petition on the grounds defendant was ineligible for relief under the plain language of sectio

Defendant and appellant James Calzada appeals after the trial court found defendant in violation of his parole supervision. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

Petitioner William Joel Petty seeks a writ of mandate compelling the superior court to grant his motion for postconviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9. Having reviewed all of the filings in this matter, we conclude the superior court assessed Petty’s motion under the wrong statute. We therefore direct the superior court to vacate its order denying Petty’s motion and remand the matter for the court to reconsider the motion under section 1054.9. We express no opinion on the merits of the motion.

A.L. (Mother) is the mother and J.M. is the father of N.M. (female, born April 2019; Minor). On appeal, Mother contends that San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901). For the reasons set forth post, we conclude the juvenile court properly found that the noticing provisions of ICWA did not apply to this case and affirm.