CA Unpub Decisions

Jason Nicholas Arnold challenges the trial court’s denial of a recommendation by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that the court recall his sentence in light of Senate Bill No. 1393. The trial court declined to recall the sentence, holding that Senate Bill No. 1393 does not apply to final judgments.

Raul Bravo and Vincent M. Martinez appeal from postjudgment orders summarily denying their petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 as to their prior convictions of first degree murder. Because the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, Bravo and Martinez are not eligible for relief. We affirm.

A jury convicted appellant Andre Lamont Ingram of four counts of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) He was sentenced to eight years in prison, consisting of five years on the first count plus three consecutive one-year terms on the remaining counts. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a peace officer’s lay opinion that the robbery suspect’s voice on surveillance tapes and phone calls was that of appellant. We affirm.

Thomas O’Connor and Kelli Parille, the beneficiaries of a family trust, agreed to divide the proceeds from a transaction disposing of the trust’s interest in a restaurant business. The agreement called for them to divide the proceeds equally, up to a certain amount, with Parille receiving any proceeds exceeding that amount. Ultimately the business was sold in a transaction that valued three distinct business assets. The proceeds exceeded the threshold amount, leading to a dispute over which of the component assets were included in the parties’ agreement. The trustee proposed to distribute the proceeds from all three assets, in effect divesting O’Connor of half of the value of the third asset. O’Connor objected to the distribution, and Parille moved to enforce it pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The trial court granted the motion, and O’Connor appeals.

Johnny Khalili appeals from an award of attorney fees in favor of respondent Brett Raymond Hoag. We affirm.

A jury convicted Jah-Jah Jackson of stalking Sydnee Goodman. Goodman hosted internet shows for computer video gamers, and Jackson was a member of Goodman’s online audience. Ultimately, Jackson used the internet to find Goodman’s private home address. Jackson challenges his felony conviction on First Amendment and other grounds, contending he did not expressly threaten Goodman. However, his emails, coupled with his conduct, are substantial evidence to support his conviction for stalking. We affirm the judgment. Statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

Defendant Julio Cesar Ortiz appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after the jury found him guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful possession of ammunition. Ortiz contends the trial court violated his due process rights by denying his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor questioned Ortiz about his bail status, whether his prior conviction was a strike, and whether he served time in prison. Ortiz also argues the prosecutor committed misconduct by badgering him in cross-examination as to whether the sheriff’s deputy who had pulled him over was lying and by eliciting the deputy’s testimony that he would not risk losing his job by lying. Finally, Ortiz asserts the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 and violated his confrontation rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by precluding defense counsel from questioning the deputy about a complaint made against the deputy. Although the prosecutor’s questioning was impr

Defendant and appellant Paul T. Gordy (defendant) appeals from the judgment awarding plaintiff and respondent Renita Turner (plaintiff) $226,784 in compensatory damages and $170,000 in punitive damages following a court trial in this action for breach of contract, fraud, and other claims. We affirm the judgment.

In 2010 and 2011, attorney Robert Scott Shtofman represented Bernice Chinyere Ivoko in a civil lawsuit, resulting in a million-dollar jury verdict in her favor and the award of control over a partnership. Ivoko did not pay Shtofman’s attorney fees. Shtofman sued Ivoko, and a jury awarded him $271,600. Ivoko appeals, and we affirm.

Plaintiff Florence Nicole Andongella appeals the judgment of dismissal of her complaint against defendant Daniel A. Weber, after the trial court sustained Mr. Weber’s demurrer without leave to amend. Finding Ms. Andongella has failed to follow the basic rules of appellate procedure, and that her claims of error fail on their merits, we affirm.

Appellant Adrian Levigne (Appellant) appeals from the judgment following his no contest plea to charges of possession of a firearm by an ex-felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

Defendant Kelvin Chapman appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant has been apprised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

Following his admission to one misdemeanor count of driving while having a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), minor was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on home supervision subject to various conditions. On appeal, he contends that the standard warrantless search condition imposed by the court is unreasonable and overbroad under In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.). We disagree and shall affirm the order.

J.H. appeals from an order designating her a ward of the juvenile court and placing her on probation subject to various terms and conditions. Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.