CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Veronica Paz challenges an order denying her petition for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which restricts the scope of vicarious liability for the crime of murder. The trial court ruled this restriction unlawfully amended Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 in violation of the California Constitution. At the time the trial court rendered its decision, in September 2019, the constitutionality of SB 1437 was an open question. However, since then, this court, and every other appellate court that has considered the issue, has consistently upheld SB 1437 against claims it violates the state Constitution.

In a petition for rehearing, defendants argue the judgment, as modified by this opinion, is void because it awards more than was requested in the complaint. This argument is without merit; the complaint’s prayer sought treble damages, which are awarded by the modified judgment.

Defendant Ernesto Zibray was convicted of nine drug and firearm offenses. He contends on appeal that the search that led to the discovery of the drugs and firearms was unlawful because it was unreasonable in duration. The People disagree. We affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Steven Dean Parks pled guilty to one count of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) A trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life in state prison.
Approximately 29 years later, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95, which the court denied.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

Defendant and appellant, Daniel Loya, appeals from the judgment entered following jury convictions for two counts of assault on his neighbors with a deadly weapon, a hatchet (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 1 & 2), and two counts of making criminal threats to chop off his neighbors’ heads (§ 422; counts 3 & 4). The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in prison.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Edwin Vincent Taylor II, of one count of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)). The trial court imposed a suspended sentence of one year in county jail and placed defendant on formal probation for a period of three years.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) substantial evidence does not support his conviction; (2) the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats; (3) the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting testimony from the victim’s mother; and (4) cumulative error requires reversal of his conviction. We reject defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

In 2016, defendant and appellant Martin Munoz Diosdado, a citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty to several felony offenses he committed while driving drunk. In return, he was sentenced to a total term of three years in state prison with 517 days’ credit for time served. Sometime after his release from prison, defendant was placed into removal proceedings by the federal government and detained in an immigration facility. In 2019, defendant filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7, arguing he was not advised of, and did not understand, the immigration consequences of his plea. In an ex parte proceeding, the trial court denied defendant’s motion, finding “[d]efendant was advised by both defense counsel and the court that his plea would result in his deportation.”

Plaintiff and appellant Kyle Baker sued defendant and respondent Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (Yamaha), a California corporation, alleging that its failure to furnish hanging price tags (hang tags) to its independent dealer Temecula Motorsports, Inc. (TMI) in 2012, as required by Vehicle Code former section 24014, subdivision (a), made it impossible for consumers to determine the true prices of its new, assembled motorcycles. Baker alleged causes of action for unfair competition (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), false advertising (FAL; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq.), and aiding and abetting. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Yamaha on the grounds Baker lacked standing because the undisputed evidence showed he was not harmed by the absence of the “Yamaha hang tags.”

Appellant, John H. Stull, appeals from the family court’s October 30, 2018 postjudgment order declining to enforce the Nevada forum selection and choice of law clause in a nondisclosure and confidentiality agreement (NDA) between John and his former spouse, respondent, Nicolette L. Stull. Nicolette signed the NDA at John’s request so that John would provide Nicolette with confidential information concerning John’s postjudgment sale of several (formerly community owned) business entities and assets that John managed and controlled (collectively referred to as GTC.)

A jury convicted Mark Bruestle of resisting an executive officer by force and violence (Pen. Code, § 69; count 1) and vandalism causing damage in excess of $400 (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(1); count 2). The jury found true an allegation that Bruestle personally inflicted great bodily injury on a police officer (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a) and 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) in connection with count 1.

The juvenile court adjudged Daniel H. a ward of the court based on true findings on one count of attempting a criminal threat (Pen. Code, §§ 422, 664; further statutory references are to the Penal Code), one count of threatening a school official (§ 71), three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and two counts of robbery (§ 211).

After losing her home in foreclosure, Babette Beriones sued Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (Deutsche Bank), IMH Assets Corp. (IMH), IMPAC Funding Corporation (IMPAC), Peter Vasilas and Jessie Menzel, MTC Financial Inc. doing business as Trustee Corps (Trustee Corps), James Lowell Anthony, LLC (JLA) (collectively, Respondents) and others asserting causes of action for wrongful foreclosure, fraud, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander of title and quiet title

Appointed counsel for defendant, Rajesh Kumar Sundar III, has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has disclosed certain errors associated with defendant’s probation order, including the fines and fees imposed, that we direct the trial court to correct; we otherwise affirm the judgment.

The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over 15-year-old D.C., Jr. (D.C.), based on a finding that he had suffered emotional abuse as a result of a high conflict custody dispute between his parents. No party challenges the jurisdictional order.
D.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s December 5, 2019, dispositional order removing him from the home of his father, D.C., Sr. (Father) and placing him with his maternal aunt. At the dispositional hearing, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that D.C. remain with Father, although it noted it had serious concerns about D.C.’s well-being in Father’s care. Accordingly, DCFS advised this court it did not intend to file a respondent’s brief. We granted a motion by L.M. (Mother) to be designated as the respondent.