CA Unpub Decisions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Richard M. Goul, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Asphalt Professionals, Inc. (API) appeals an order granting a motion to lift a stay that had prevented Fairland Liquidating Corporation (FLC), formerly known as Fairland Construction, Inc., from enforcing a money judgment against API. The stay was issued because FLC’s corporate status had been suspended. FLC subsequently revived its corporate status and moved to lift the stay. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court properly granted FLC’s motion to lift the stay and enforce its judgment against API. We affirm.

Andrew H. appeals an order continuing his commitment to the Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). The MDO Act (Pen.Code, § 2960 et seq.) “permits the government to civilly commit for mental health treatment certain classes of state prisoners during and after parole.” (In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1, 23 (Qawi).)
This is appellant’s second appeal concerning his MDO status. In a 2020 opinion, we affirmed the original commitment order. (People v. Andrew H. (Jan. 14, 2020, B298502) [nonpub. opn.] (B298502).) Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to show that, “by reason of [his] severe mental health disorder, [he] represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others
. . . .” (§ 2972, subd. (c).) We affirm.

Jennifer Cunningham purports to appeal from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying her request to modify a child custody agreement. The court’s order was filed on February 19, 2020, and was served on the parties that day. Cunningham filed her notice of appeal on June 22.
Cunningham’s notice of appeal was due on April 20. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104.) But that deadline was extended by emergency orders:
On March 20, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, issued an order authorizing the Administrative Presiding Justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Elwood Lui, to extend, by 30 days, the time to do any act required or permitted under the California Rules of Court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.66.) On April 9, Justice Lui issued an order implementing the Chief Justice’s order: “All time periods specified by the California Rules of Court, including but not limited to the time to do any act required or permitted under the

Jennifer Cunningham purports to appeal from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying her request to modify a child custody agreement. The court’s order was filed on February 19, 2020, and was served on the parties that day. Cunningham filed her notice of appeal on June 22.
Cunningham’s notice of appeal was due on April 20. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104.) But that deadline was extended by emergency orders:
On March 20, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, issued an order authorizing the Administrative Presiding Justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Elwood Lui, to extend, by 30 days, the time to do any act required or permitted under the California Rules of Court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.66.) On April 9, Justice Lui issued an order implementing the Chief Justice’s order: “All time periods specified by the California Rules of Court, including but not limited to the time to do any act required or permitted under the

A jury convicted Tino Plascencia of false imprisonment (Pen. Code, §§ 236, 237, subd. (a)) and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to two years in state prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and ordered him to serve five years of formal probation. Plascencia contends: (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct, and (2) his five-year probation term must be reduced to two years. We remand with directions to reduce Plascencia’s probation term, and otherwise affirm.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.
Christine Dubois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Charles J. Sarosy, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy D. Hogue, Judge. The judgment of dismissal is reversed. The order denying the petition for writ of administrative mandamus is affirmed.
Law Offices of John Michael Jensen and John Michael Jensen for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Reed Smith, Raymond A. Cardozo, Amir Shlesinger and Todd Kim for Defendants and Respondents.

Matthew Robert Torres appeals a judgment following his conviction of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), a felony, with a finding that another person was present during the crime (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21) (count 1); forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)), a felony, with a finding he committed the offense during the commission of a first degree burglary (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e)(2), (j)(1) & (2)), with the intent to commit one of the crimes charged in counts 2–5 (id., subds. (d)(4), (j)(1) & (2)), and committed the offense against more than one victim (id., subds. (b), (c)(4), (7) or (8), (e)(4)) (count 2); lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), a felony, with a finding he committed the crime during the commission of first degree burglary (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e)(2), (j)(1) & (2)), with the intent to commit one of the crimes charged in counts 2–5 (§ 667.61, subds. (d)(4), (j)(1) & (2)), and committed

Daniel Ortiz appeals an order denying his petition pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h) to strike a 25-year-to-life firearm enhancement. Because subdivision (h) was not enacted until many years after the judgment against Ortiz became final, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the petition. We dismiss the appeal.

Defendant John Swinger pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 11 years in state prison. On appeal, his appointed counsel has filed an opening brief asking this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We have conducted our examination, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

Defendant Kelly Hugh McNeely pleaded no contest to two counts of lewd conduct on a child under the age of 14 in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) in exchange for a three-year prison term. The trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed upon term and imposed various fines and fees, finding defendant had the ability to pay. On appeal, defendant challenges the imposition of fines and fees, arguing that the trial court erroneously placed the burden on him to show an inability to pay, considered potential future earnings as opposed to present ability to pay, made an ability to pay finding that was unsupported by the evidence, and failed to hold an evidentiary hearing. Defendant maintains that, accordingly, the imposition of fines and fees violated his due process and equal protection rights under the California and federal Constitutions, invoking People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). We shall affirm.

Defendant David Saavedra appeals after a jury convicted him of committing sex offenses against two victims almost a decade apart. For his conduct against Doe 1 in 2001, when defendant was 24 years old, the jury convicted defendant of rape of a developmentally disabled person (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(1)) and forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)). For his conduct against Doe 2 in 2009 and 2010, when defendant was approximately 33 years old, the jury convicted defendant of three counts of committing a lewd act on a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that he committed the offenses during a burglary (§ 667.61, subds. (a), (b), (d)(4)). The jury also found that defendant committed qualifying sex offenses against multiple victims (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e)(4)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 90 years to life.
Defendant contends that insufficient evidence supports his conviction of forcible rape; the trial court misinstructed the jury on the ele

Defendant Juan Eulogio Rodriguez pled guilty to felony possession of marijuana in a prison in violation of Penal Code section 4573.6. He later petitioned for resentencing or dismissal of his conviction pursuant to section 11361.8 of the Health and Safety Code and Proposition 64, contending that the offense had been decriminalized because he possessed less than 28.5 grams of marijuana not in the form of concentrated cannabis. The trial court recognized that California Courts of Appeal have split on the issue. (Compare People v. Perry (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 885 (Perry) [Proposition 64 did not decriminalize possession of cannabis in prison], review denied June 12, 2019, S255148 with People v. Raybon (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 111 (Raybon) [Proposition 64 decriminalized possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana in prison], review granted Aug. 21, 2019, S256978.) The trial court agreed with Perry and denied his motion. Defendant contends that was error. We agree with the trial court and we