CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Larry Darnell Ross, Sr., appeals a judgment following a jury’s determination that he committed one count of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and one count of possession of a controlled substance in jail (Pen Code, § 4573.6), as well as findings that defendant had a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1)) and had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), for which defendant received an aggregate prison term of eight years.
On appeal, defendant raises three challenges to his sentence. First, he seeks relief in light of the passage of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136), which would eliminate his two 1-year prior prison term enhancements. Second, defendant asks that we stay his concurrent prison term pursuant to section 654. Finally, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike his prior strike at sentencing.
We agree that defendant is entitled to relief under Senate Bill

Defendant Larry Darnell Ross, Sr., appeals a judgment following a jury’s determination that he committed one count of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and one count of possession of a controlled substance in jail (Pen Code, § 4573.6), as well as findings that defendant had a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1)) and had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), for which defendant received an aggregate prison term of eight years.
On appeal, defendant raises three challenges to his sentence. First, he seeks relief in light of the passage of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136), which would eliminate his two 1-year prior prison term enhancements. Second, defendant asks that we stay his concurrent prison term pursuant to section 654. Finally, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike his prior strike at sentencing.
We agree that defendant is entitled to relief under Senate Bill

Defendant Phillip Lozano was found guilty of multiple sexual offenses against the minor daughter of his former girlfriend. The court sentenced him to 10 years plus an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in state prison.
Defendant contends on appeal that the court erred in instructing the jury on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, and that the abstract of judgment does not reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. We conclude the court properly instructed the jury, but that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the sentence imposed by the court.

Douglas Biasi, Sr. died intestate in 2019. His estate consisted of a one-half interest in a successful business, Roy’s Towing, as well as several commercial and residential properties he purchased with business partner Roy Conn. Disputes between the estate’s administrators and Conn ensued. This prompted the probate court to appoint a receiver sua sponte to control the day-to-day operations of Roy’s Towing and to facilitate Conn’s buyout of the estate’s interest in the company. The court later expanded the receivership to include all the estate’s real property assets. Appellants challenge both orders.
We conclude appellants failed to timely appeal the original order appointing a receiver. While they timely appealed the second order, we conclude the probate court acted within its discretion when it expanded the receivership. The record also fails to disclose how, if at all, appellants have been damaged by the order. Judgment is affirmed.

In 2015, a jury found 21-year-old David Campos guilty of assault with a deadly weapon on his 23-year-old brother, Roque (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1), assault with a deadly weapon on Roque’s girlfriend, Lizbeth Gonzalez (count 2), battery on Roque (§ 243, subd. (d); count 3), attempted murder of Roque (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 4), and attempted murder of Gonzalez (count 5). As to all counts, the jury found true the allegation that Campos inflicted great bodily injury on the victims. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) As to counts 3-5, the jury found true the allegation that Campos used a deadly and dangerous weapon (a knife) in the commission of the offense. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Finally, the jury found true the allegation that Campos committed the attempted murder of Gonzalez willfully, deliberately and with premeditation. The evidence presented at trial established that in 2012, in an unprovoked attack, Campos stabbed Roque and Gonzalez at the family home where Campo

A jury found Roger Henry Neufeld guilty of second degree robbery based on his theft of a candy bar from a convenience store and his subsequent interactions with the store’s sales associate. (Pen. Code, § 211.) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that Neufeld suffered two prior serious and/or violent felonies pursuant to section 667, subdivision (d) and suffered a prior serious felony pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court dismissed one of Neufeld’s prior “strikes” pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), and sentenced Neufeld to 11 years in state prison.
We affirmed the trial court’s judgment and the Supreme Court denied Neufeld’s petition for review in 2016. (People v. Neufeld (Sept. 16, 2016, B265952) [nonpub. opn.], review denied Dec. 14, 2016, S237938 (Neufeld I).)
In 2018—long after the judgment in this matter became final —the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 1393

Plaintiff Lianna Rebolledo appeals from a judgment in favor of her former employer, defendant Hombre Nuevo (HN), after the trial court granted HN’s motion for summary judgment on all claims in Rebolledo’s complaint against HN. Rebolledo’s complaint alleges that HN’s termination of her employment violated public policy and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA), that HN employees made defamatory statements about her in discussing her discharge with HN students and volunteers, that HN did not provide her with a copy of her complete personnel file in the manner required by Labor Code section 1198.5, and that the statutory violations Rebolledo alleges constitute actionable unlawful business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200. We conclude that HN met its burden of establishing that there is no triable issue of material fact as to any of Rebolledo’s causes of action. Accordingly, we affirm.

Plaintiff Donat Ricketts appeals from the judgment of dismissal in favor of his former landlord Integrity Property Management, Inc., the landlord’s property manager and attorneys, and an entity related to the landlord. The trial court granted defendants’ special motions to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The court concluded that Ricketts’s claims arose out of protected activity, namely defendants’ actions in connection with an unlawful detainer proceeding and restraining orders issued against Ricketts. It also found that Ricketts did not establish a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court also sustained defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend.
On appeal, Ricketts contends that the trial court erred by striking his causes of action because they did not arise from protected activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute. We conclude that his appeal from these orders is untimely, and dismiss that portion o

A jury convicted defendants Cecil Johnson and Devonte Lamar Bailey of gang-related, first degree murder and found true firearm-use and gang allegations. On appeal, defendants contend the trial court erred in finding one of two earlier dismissals was justified by excusable neglect, thus entitling the prosecutor to refile the case.
Johnson separately contends his conviction was not supported by substantial evidence and the trial court erred by ruling the preliminary hearing testimony of two witnesses was admissible at trial because they were unavailable. Bailey also contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, Proposition 57 violates equal protection, and he was not permitted a Franklin hearing. (See People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261.)
We affirm the judgment of convictions. However, we reverse the sentencing and remand the matter to the trial court to correct certain sentencing errors and provide Bailey with a Franklin hearing.

Plaintiff and appellant Michael Berlin, M.D. (plaintiff) sued defendants and respondents Terence Kim, M.D. (Dr. Kim), Debraj Mukherjee, M.D. (Dr. Mukherjee), J. Patrick Johnson, M.D. (Dr. Johnson), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Cedars-Sinai), and The Spine Center, A Medical Group, Inc. (Spine Center) for fraud relating to a spinal surgery performed on plaintiff in 2014. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to perform an element of the spine surgery to which he had consented, and then fraudulently concealed that failure by representing to plaintiff that the full surgery had been performed. Plaintiff alleges that he did not learn of the limited nature of the surgery and defendants’ fraudulent concealment until March 2016, when a second surgery was performed by a different surgeon.
Defendants demurred on a variety of grounds, including (as to Dr. Kim, Dr. Mukherjee, and Cedars-Sinai) that plaintiff’s fraud claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court

This appeal challenges the propriety of a cost bill that totals less than $2,000. The action arose from a dispute between brothers Ivan and Davor Bilaver over the ownership of certain real property. During the course of the litigation, the court ordered the Estate of Marija Bilaver (the Estate) joined as an indispensable party. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment, and awarded costs of suit, in favor of Ivan and the Estate.
Davor purported to appeal from both the judgment and the Estate’s cost bill. In ruling on Ivan and the Estate’s motion to dismiss the appeal, we found the notice of appeal was untimely as to the judgment but timely as to the challenge to the order awarding costs. Thus, we ordered Davor to limit his arguments to the order awarding the Estate its costs. We dismiss the appeal to the judgment; and, finding no error, we affirm the order awarding the Estate its costs.

Danny R. Wooten and Tyrone E. Collins appeal from the judgments entered upon their respective convictions and sentences on multiple counts of violating Penal Code section 424, subdivision (a), section 504, and Government Code section 1090. Between 2003 and 2014, Wooten, a former employee of the City of Pasadena (the City), and Collins, an electrical contractor, collaborated to embezzle more than three million dollars from the City by submitting hundreds of fraudulent invoices for payment for construction work regarding a utility project.
Appellants assert numerous challenges to their convictions and sentences. Primarily, they argue they were improperly charged with multiple counts of violating section 424, subdivision (a), section 504, and Government Code section 1090. Appellants also argue the trial court failed to calculate their custody credits correctly. As we shall explain, only the argument concerning the custody credits has merit. Accordingly, we modify the judgments as to the c

This matter involves a dispute regarding real property currently owned by 8747 Shoreham, LLC (Shoreham). The dispute has a long and tortuous procedural history spanning three separate lawsuits over the course of almost a decade. The appeals consolidated and now before this court are from one such lawsuit, brought by Shoreham against Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of SAMI II Trust 2006-AR7, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR7 (BONY), owner of a deed of trust BONY contends still encumbers the property. The suit ended in a default judgment against BONY after it and its loan servicer, Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar), failed to respond to multiple notices of the proceeding. BONY, Nationstar, and Shoreham separately appeal from three different orders the trial court issued in that suit. We affirm all three.
BONY’s Appeal (Case No. B294377): BONY filed two motions to set aside the default judgment against it, one based on Nationstar’s mistake and neglect, and anot

Defendant Juan Li appeals from a postjudgment restitution order requiring her to pay restitution to five victims. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Defendant has been notified by her counsel she had 30 days to file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the judgment.