CA Unpub Decisions

Vijay Bhushan appeals from the denial of his petition to vacate his first degree murder conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. He contends the trial court erred in finding he failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief and in relying upon the record of conviction and this court’s prior opinion in denying the petition. We affirm.

This appeal arises out of a long-running dispute between Lawrence B. Landman, a United States citizen and resident of Denmark who does business in California, and Akkuser Oy (Akkuser), a Finnish battery recycling company.

Mary Cohen, Frank Cohen, and Angie Broughton appeal five probate court orders related to the estate of Bishop Cohen, Mary’s late husband. They argue, among other things, that the orders should be reversed because the trial court erred in (1) finding Mary was not the surviving spouse and (2) approving the administrator’s accounting of noncash assets. We affirm.

Defendant Michael Mike Muaddi entered into a plea agreement under which he pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and possession of a false compartment for concealing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.8, subd. (a)) in exchange for probation and dismissal of a misdemeanor cocaine possession count and a prison prior enhancement allegation. The court granted defendant probation for three years with 210 days in jail and stayed all fines and fees due to defendant’s inability to pay.

In 2011, a jury convicted appellant Juan Felipe Melendez of multiple felonies, including robbery and attempted robbery, and found true allegations concerning personal use of a firearm. In addition, Melendez pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced Melendez to 16 years in prison, which included then-mandatory firearm use enhancements. This court affirmed the convictions in 2013.

Defendant Villa Jean Cabanayan pleaded no contest to arson of an inhabited structure and admitted to using an accelerant in exchange for a state prison sentence of no longer than six years. The trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year term and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated her constitutional rights by imposing the fines and fees without first determining that she had the ability to pay them. We shall affirm.

Defendant Villa Jean Cabanayan pleaded no contest to arson of an inhabited structure and admitted to using an accelerant in exchange for a state prison sentence of no longer than six years. The trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year term and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated her constitutional rights by imposing the fines and fees without first determining that she had the ability to pay them. We shall affirm.

Defendant Villa Jean Cabanayan pleaded no contest to arson of an inhabited structure and admitted to using an accelerant in exchange for a state prison sentence of no longer than six years. The trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year term and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated her constitutional rights by imposing the fines and fees without first determining that she had the ability to pay them. We shall affirm.

Defendant Villa Jean Cabanayan pleaded no contest to arson of an inhabited structure and admitted to using an accelerant in exchange for a state prison sentence of no longer than six years. The trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year term and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated her constitutional rights by imposing the fines and fees without first determining that she had the ability to pay them. We shall affirm.

Defendant Villa Jean Cabanayan pleaded no contest to arson of an inhabited structure and admitted to using an accelerant in exchange for a state prison sentence of no longer than six years. The trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year term and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated her constitutional rights by imposing the fines and fees without first determining that she had the ability to pay them. We shall affirm.

This is the second appeal by Michele Hanna concerning her marriage to the late Patrick Hanna. In the first appeal, we affirmed the family court’s order entering a judgment nunc pro tunc in December 2019 dissolving the marriage as of March 2008. Michele appealed from that order in February 2020. We issued our opinion in December 2020.

J.N. appeals from the juvenile court’s judgment entered after the court found he committed murder, felony vandalism, and street terrorism, and he vicariously discharged a firearm. J.N. argues insufficient evidence supports the finding he committed street terrorism. We agree and reverse the true finding on the street terrorism allegation and remand. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for appellant Tyrece Jefferson asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Jefferson was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. This court did not receive a supplemental brief from him. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Jefferson, we affirm.

Appointed counsel for appellant Alejandro Romo Preciado asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Preciado was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. This court did not receive a supplemental brief from him. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Preciado, we affirm.