CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Jose Luis Huape Fuentes was tried before a jury and convicted of multiple sex offenses against his two biological daughters, who were minors at the time of the crimes. He contends: (1) his confession to deputies during an interview at his home should have been excluded at trial as having been made during a custodial interrogation without the advisements required under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda); (2) his confession was involuntary because it was motivated by one deputy’s promise of leniency; (3) his wife improperly opined at trial that one of her daughters was telling the truth about the charges; (4) his son should have been permitted to testify that in his opinion, appellant had not committed the sexual assaults; and (5) the abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect a stay of one count under Penal Code section 654. We order the abstract modified but otherwise affirm.

By her July 2, 2021 notice of appeal, plaintiff and appellant Maridol C. Mendones (Mendones) seeks to appeal from: (1) a February 1, 2021 “judgment of dismissal” entered after an October 21, 2020 order sustaining a demurrer; and (2) a June 10, 2021 “order or judgment.” The record on appeal contains three orders matching the dates mentioned in the notice: (1) a signed October 21, 2020 order sustaining a demurrer to the second amended complaint without and with leave to amend; (2) an unsigned February 1, 2021 order dismissing the action without prejudice; and (3) a signed June 10, 2021 order denying Mendones’ motion for reconsideration of the earlier two orders. As we now explain, the appeal in this case must be dismissed as we lack jurisdiction to review the orders.

Defendant Melvin Lamar Mark appeals an order summarily denying his petition for resentencing under the then applicable statute, Penal Code former section 1170.95 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015). The trial court denied the petition, finding that Mark was ineligible for relief as he had been convicted of attempted murder, not murder. Because section 1170.95 has been amended, effective January 1, 2022 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2; Cal. Const., art. IV, § 8, subd. (c)(1)), to explicitly allow persons to petition for resentencing of attempted murder convictions, we reverse and remand.

Defendants Windsor Oakridge Healthcare Center, LP d.b.a. Windsor Healthcare Center of Oakland, Brookdale Healthcare and Wellness Centre, LP d.b.a. Brookdale Healthcare and Wellness Center and d.b.a. Windsor Healthcare Centre of Oakland, SF Management Co., LLC, and Boardwalk West Financial Services, LLC (collectively, “Windsor”) appeal from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration of this civil action filed by Gary Naganuma’s estate and his heirs, wife Debbie Naganuma and daughter Allison Naganuma (collectively, “plaintiffs”) based on the care Gary received as a resident in a skilled nursing facility they owned and operated. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 1281.2, 1294.) We agree with the trial court that the plaintiffs are not bound by an arbitration agreement signed by Debbie admitting Gary into Windsor’s facility, because Windsor did not prove that Debbie had the authority to act as Gary’s agent for this purpose. We also conclude the trial court, and not the arbi

In 2014, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (Successor Agency) and the City and County of San Francisco (City) filed an action to quiet title to real property consisting of tidelands. John and Richard Lebolt filed a cross-complaint, alleging they owned the property. The trial court concluded the Lebolts did not have title to the property and granted the City and Successor Agency judgment on the pleadings — a ruling this court affirmed in Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco v. Lebolt ((Mar. 10, 2017, A145670) [nonpub. opn.] (Lebolt I) review den. Jan. 14, 2017, S241377).

In 2014, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (Successor Agency) and the City and County of San Francisco (City) filed an action to quiet title to real property consisting of tidelands. John and Richard Lebolt filed a cross-complaint, alleging they owned the property. The trial court concluded the Lebolts did not have title to the property and granted the City and Successor Agency judgment on the pleadings — a ruling this court affirmed in Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco v. Lebolt ((Mar. 10, 2017, A145670) [nonpub. opn.] (Lebolt I) review den. Jan. 14, 2017, S241377).

In 2014, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (Successor Agency) and the City and County of San Francisco (City) filed an action to quiet title to real property consisting of tidelands. John and Richard Lebolt filed a cross-complaint, alleging they owned the property. The trial court concluded the Lebolts did not have title to the property and granted the City and Successor Agency judgment on the pleadings — a ruling this court affirmed in Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco v. Lebolt ((Mar. 10, 2017, A145670) [nonpub. opn.] (Lebolt I) review den. Jan. 14, 2017, S241377).

After her employment was terminated, plaintiff Machele Webb sued defendant DSM Engineering Plastics, Inc. (DSM) asserting several causes of action, including for disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). She appeals from both the summary judgment entered in favor of DSM and the denial of her motion for a new trial.

In 2000, appellant Tyrone Damion Jones was convicted of multiple sexual and assaultive offenses committed when he was 22 years old. He was sentenced to 240 years to life in state prison after allegations under the Three Strikes law and various enhancements and allegations were found true. (Pen. Code,
§§ 664/261, subd. (a)(2), 289, subd. (a)(1), former 288a, subd. (c)(2), 261, subd. (a)(2), 245, subd. (a)(1), 422, 12022.8, 667, subd. (a), 667.61, 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).) In the appeal from the original judgment, we remanded the case for correction of a single sentencing error—imposition of one serious felony prior instead of two—but otherwise affirmed.

Rodney S. appeals from a dispositional order that included an electronic search condition of probation and required him to complete a Challenge Academy program. Rodney contends the electronic search condition is both unreasonable and unconstitutional (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481). He further argues that the court’s Challenge Academy early release authorization was an unlawful delegation of judicial authority.

Defendant Adrian Perez, then doing business as a sole proprietorship under the name ALP Construction (ALP), underpaid the State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) by almost $100,000 for workers’ compensation premiums for its 2014 policy. Sued on the debt by a collection agency, Perez argued in opposition to summary judgment that plaintiff Northern California Collection Service, Inc. (Northern) lacked standing to pursue the action because State Fund’s assignment of the claim to Northern named only ALP Construction & Painting, Inc. (ALP Inc.) as the debtor (a corporate entity Perez formed after entering into the 2014 policy, which was also named in final premium bill), rather than Perez in his individual capacity or any other Perez entity previously insured by State Fund. The trial court found no triable issues of material fact and granted summary adjudication on Northern’s cause of action for an open book account. We affirm.

Defendant Love Joy Miller was convicted by plea in 1982 of murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664). According to testimony from a partial preliminary hearing transcript in the record on appeal, defendant and another person were involved in an incident at a home where two victims were shot and one of those victims was also stabbed. The victim who was both stabbed and shot testified that defendant stabbed him and someone else was the shooter. The other victim died from the gunshot wound. There was no evidence defendant was armed with a firearm during the incident, or that he was the shooter. Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison.

Kelsey M., mother of T.D. (the child), appeals from the juvenile court’s orders made at a juvenile dependency proceeding. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Kelsey M. contends the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to adequately investigate a claim of Native American (Indian) ancestry by Jason E., the child’s biological father. County counsel concedes the juvenile court violated the notice and investigation provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Em Van Nguyen appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying his Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition. Em argues the court erred by denying his section 1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause and conducting an evidentiary hearing. We disagree and affirm the postjudgment order.