CA Unpub Decisions

According to an arbitrator’s ruling, however, respondents disclosed to appellants that they were doing exactly that. For example, one disclosure stated, “The purchase price of the property being acquired by the Co-Owners includes a commission to be paid to AMC by the Seller (see ‘Manager’s Compensation and Fees’). Accordingly, the Seller would have sold the property for a lower Purchase price if it were not obligated to pay such commission.” And appellants waited eight years to file their demand for arbitration against respondents. Recently, in Stella v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 181 (Stella), another appeal arising from this set of real estate transactions, the court found the disclosures commenced the statute of limitations and that the plaintiff’s claim was thus time-barred. This court came to a similar conclusion in WA Southwest 2, LLC v. First American Title Ins. Co. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 148 (WA Southwest 2).

A jury convicted defendant Richard Lopez of torture, aggravated mayhem, domestic violence-related infliction of traumatic corporal injury, criminal threats, and arson of personal property. It further found defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury in committing the first three offenses. The trial court separately found defendant had served a prior prison term for a domestic violence conviction.

This appeal arises from a series of real estate investments that cratered during the great recession. The hearings and appeals spawned by these investments are legion. Although there are several different investments and various appellants that comprise the chorus of litigation, each investment was structured the same, and the basic claim asserted by each appellant is the same. Appellant investors claim that respondents, who acted as middlemen between appellant investors and the seller of the property, committed fraud by advertising a purchase price of the property that was higher than the appraised value. Respondents’ covert purpose was to reimburse the seller for fees it was contractually bound to pay to respondents. By reimbursing the seller from the purchase price, the economic effect was to shift the financial burden of paying those fees to appellants.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Robert Connolly, Jr., 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.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

The Board of Retirement of Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Association (Board) denied Andres Rodriguez’s application for a service-connected disability retirement. Rodriguez filed a petition for writ of mandate to set aside the Board’s determination. The trial court granted the writ and directed the Board to grant Rodriguez a service-connected disability retirement.

This appeal arises from appellant/respondent Stanley Bradford Clarke’s unsuccessful motion, filed on June 28, 2018, for modification of child support retroactive to 2008, and for reimbursement of discretionary support add-ons, that is, travel expenses related to child visitation, in the amount of $49,290.62, incurred between 2007 and 2013.

Defendant and appellant Juan Saenz, Jr., filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, which the court denied. After counsel for defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and two potentially arguable issues: whether the court erred in considering defendant’s record of conviction and whether defendant’s record of conviction established that defendant was the sole and actual perpetrator of the murder. We affirm.

Defendant Michael Dennis Kimberling timely appeals his judgment of conviction, arguing that the trial court’s imposition of certain fines and fees without a determination of his ability to pay them violates People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), the Eighth Amendment, and equal protection. We agree with the People that defendant has forfeited these claims by failing to assert his inability to pay in the trial court. We further find that defendant has not established that his counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this argument. Accordingly, we affirm

Following a trial, a jury found defendant Lawrence Leland Luck guilty of one count of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years and found true a special allegation that defendant engaged in substantial sexual conduct with the victim. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in ruling that it would permit the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant’s wife, if she were called as a defense witness, about her reaction to prior accusations of sexual abuse against defendant. We will affirm the judgment.

In May 2015, during a time of record drought, defendant California Department of Water Resources (the Department) began construction of a salinity barrier at the West False River to inhibit the intrusion of saltwater into a portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (the Delta). The Department did so pursuant to the declaration of a state of emergency and the issuance of Executive Order No. B-29-15 (Governor’s Exec. Order No. B-29-15 (April 1, 2015)) (the EO) by defendant Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (the Governor).

Samuel Anderson appeals from an order denying a motion filed in the trial court seeking a modification of his judgment and his release from prison without parole. We affirm.

Father Albert R. appeals the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders of the juvenile court concerning his son Santiago R., contending the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s findings on the jurisdictional allegations of the dependency petition. We affirm the judgment.

Christopher Vincent appeals the trial court’s order terminating his probation and ordering execution of his suspended seven-year state prison sentence for assault with a deadly weapon with an enhancement for infliction of great bodily injury. The trial court imposed the seven-year sentence after finding Vincent had violated his probation by driving on a suspended license, committing a hit and run, and brandishing a knife at the driver of the other car. On appeal, Vincent contends the court abused its discretion by imposing the suspended sentence for misdemeanor conduct that did not result in any physical injuries or threaten the safety of the community. We affirm.

On the afternoon of October 9, 2018, Smith attended the preliminary hearing in his murder trial, in which he and a codefendant, Derrick Williams, were accused of killing William Taylor. At the end of the hearing, as the bailiff was leading him away, Smith made a statement to Angel H., the victim’s girlfriend. According to Angel, Smith said, “ ‘Don’t forget. I know where you live.’ ” Angel looked at Smith in puzzlement, and Smith repeated himself. Angel described Smith’s demeanor as “angry.”