CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant James Ellis Arden appeals from an order denying an exemption for a separate employee pension individual retirement account (SEP IRA) in debt collection proceedings brought against him by plaintiff Martina A. Silas. Citing a federal bankruptcy statute (11 U.S.C. § 522(n)) and Code of Civil Procedure section 704.115, Arden argues the trial court erred in concluding Silas could levy his SEP IRA to satisfy her over $500,000 judgment against him.

An amended information charged Bennett with conspiracy to commit assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 245 subd. (a)(4), count 1); first degree burglary (§ 459, count 2); assault with a deadly weapon (razor blade) (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 3), with an allegation of personal infliction of great bodily injury (§§ 667.5, subd. (c)(8), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.7, subd. (a)); assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 4); first degree residential robbery (§ 211, count 5); false imprisonment by violence (§ 236, count 6); and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a), count 7), with an allegation on counts 5-7 of personal use of a deadly weapon (razor blade) (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23), 12022, subd. (b)(1)).

Saulo F. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and removal order concerning his children Hanna F. (born September 2015) and Rachelle F. (born October 2016). The children had previously been in the custody of H.B. (mother), thus father was a noncustodial parent at the time of the removal. In making its removal order, the juvenile court relied on Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivisions (a)(1), (c), and (d), and section 362, subdivision (a). Father argues that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that, as a noncustodial parent, father caused the children serious harm or put them at risk of suffering serious harm. Father further argues that the juvenile court improperly assessed removal of Hanna and Rachelle from his custody under section 361, subdivision (d).

Saulo F. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and removal order concerning his children Hanna F. (born September 2015) and Rachelle F. (born October 2016). The children had previously been in the custody of H.B. (mother), thus father was a noncustodial parent at the time of the removal.

In 2016, B.D., a juvenile, admitted to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) He was placed on probation. His maximum term of confinement was four years.

Defendant and petitioner Edward Jordan (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered after the superior court granted his Proposition 47 petition to reduce his conviction of petty theft with a prior conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor, and for resentencing. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give him the opportunity to appear with counsel at the resentencing hearing. We agree and reverse the judgment.

Defendant and petitioner Edward Jordan (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered after the superior court granted his Proposition 47 petition to reduce his conviction of petty theft with a prior conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor, and for resentencing. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give him the opportunity to appear with counsel at the resentencing hearing. We agree and reverse the judgment.

The trial court found that defendant had two prior serious or violent felony convictions under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and sentenced him to prison for a term of 150 years to life, plus 36 years. We affirm the judgment.

A property owner sued several financial entities and individuals for claims arising from an allegedly void assignment of a deed of trust. The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaint without leave to amend, but we reversed the resulting judgment and directed the court to grant leave to amend. The owner filed a second amended complaint two days beyond the statutory 30 days after remittitur, which defendants moved to have stricken. The court granted defendants’ motion, entered a judgment of dismissal, and denied the owner relief from the dismissal pursuant to the discretionary provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, finding no surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect.

At a pretrial hearing, the court excluded evidence of appellant’s gang affiliation and prior conviction for brandishing a knife. Appellant contends: (1) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by bringing the excluded evidence to the jury’s attention; (2) the trial court gave jury instructions on self-defense that were not supported by the evidence; and (3) the true findings on the prior convictions must be reversed because, before admitting the convictions, he did not voluntarily and intelligently waive his constitutional rights. We affirm.

Defendant Reginald Young appeals from his conviction for felony murder, attempted robbery, and burglary. He contends the court erred by denying his request for a hearing in support of his petition to disclose juror information.

Tony Belfield appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 and Senate Bill 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §4 (SB 1437)). His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have reviewed the record and conclude there are no issues requiring further review. We affirm.

Defendant Jesus David Campuzano pleaded no contest to two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years’ probation. On appeal, defendant challenges the probation condition requiring he not “date, socialize or form a romantic relationship with any person who has physical custody of a minor unless approved by the probation officer.” We modify the challenged probation condition and affirm the order of probation as modified.

Pursuant to a plea agreement resolving two cases, defendant Freddie Mendoza pleaded no contest to five drug-related charges and admitted various enhancement allegations. In exchange, the prosecutor agreed to the dismissal of other enhancement allegations and to a nine-year split sentence, consisting of three years in local custody and six years of mandatory supervision, including one year in a residential treatment program. On appeal, defendant raises a number of challenges to his sentence, including that the trial court violated the plea agreement by sentencing him to three years and 69 days in county jail. We agree and reverse and remand with directions.