CA Unpub Decisions

Under the terms of a marital dissolution judgment, appellant Ali Darian was required to make child support, spousal support, and equalization payments to respondent Sousan Darian. The judgment also awarded Sousan title to the couple’s former residence as her sole and separate property and ordered Ali to execute a quitclaim deed conveying his interest in the property to Sousan. Sousan’s attorney subsequently recorded an abstract of judgment against Ali.

The appeal in this case follows defendant Adolfo Montano’s resentencing in accordance with our prior opinion. When he was 21 years old, defendant robbed three college students at gunpoint and fired his gun into the air twice. He was convicted by jury of three counts of second degree robbery and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) (count 4). The jury also found true that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and, as to counts 1 through 3, that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the two prior prison term enhancement allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and found true that defendant suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total aggregate term of 70 years in prison.

Appellant/defendant Donald Torres Valle drove his nephew, Milton Moncada, to a field and accused him of harassing his wife and destroying his family. Defendant assaulted Moncada by repeatedly hitting him in the face and head with a beer bottle, attacking him with a sharp object that was possibly a box cutter, trying to run down Moncada in his truck, and using a broken beer bottle to inflict even more blows and lacerations to his head and body. Moncada tried to defend himself but suffered a broken nose and multiple cuts and abrasions on his face, neck, chest, and back. Defendant only stopped the attack when a friend who was present, but not participating in the assault, warned him that someone might drive by, see what was going on, and call the police. Defendant broke Moncada’s cell phone, threatened to kill Moncada and his family if he reported the incident to the police, and left him in the field.

Appellant Daniel Eugene Frazer was convicted by jury trial of two counts of first degree robbery. On appeal, he contends (1) as a self-represented, incarcerated defendant, he was denied adequate legal resources in violation of his constitutional rights; (2) the court erred when it denied his request for a trial continuance; and (3) the court erred by admitting cell phone records under the business records hearsay exception. We disagree and affirm.

Chantelle Muniz pleaded guilty to unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor battery on a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (b)). The trial court placed her on three years of formal probation and, as a condition of probation, imposed a Fourth Amendment waiver (condition 6(n)), including the requirement that Muniz submit her "computers[] and recordable media including electronic devices to search at any time with or without a warrant, and with or without reasonable cause, when required by [a probation officer] or law enforcement officer." Muniz appeals, contending the condition requiring her to submit her electronic devices to warrantless search is unreasonable and unconstitutionally overbroad. We conclude, under the circumstances of this case, the challenged condition is reasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) and not facially unconstitutional. We therefore affirm.

Following a 2015 plea of no contest to a charge of shooting at an inhabited dwelling, defendant Joemar Darrell Tiebout was placed on three years' formal probation with various conditions including that he obey all laws. In 2017 Tiebout was arrested after an incident in which he fled from a police officer attempting to make a traffic stop and then rolled his car on the embankment of a freeway onramp. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found that Tiebout had violated the terms and conditions of his probation, revoked probation, and sentenced him to a previously stayed seven-year prison term. He appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to support one of the two law violations relied on by the court. With or without the additional violation he maintains the court abused its discretion in failing to reinstate probation. Finding no error, we affirm.

Taju Hussein Abdulaziz appeals an order requiring him to pay Halima Adem Mohammed $168 per month in temporary spousal support and $567 per month in child support. We affirm.

In this lawsuit, plaintiffs James Carter III and Carlos Hernandez allege a variety of wage and hour claims arising from their general assertion that defendants Discount Courier Services, Inc., Belville Enterprises, Inc., Matthew Lowe, and Ronald Belville (collectively, Discount Courier), misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees. The operative complaint alleges, inter alia, a variety of Labor Code violations and seeks civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.).

Defendant Laura C. Young appeals from three cases in which civil restraining orders were granted to three of her then roommates, plaintiffs A.S., As.S., and M.W., prohibiting Young from engaging in harassing conduct and limiting her proximity to those roommates. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 527.6.) Only one of the three roommates, M.W., filed a respondent’s brief. The three appeals have been consolidated for purposes of argument and disposition. Young maintains the burden of affirmatively demonstrating trial court error has prejudiced her. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) We understand Young’s arguments to challenge both the availability of section 527.6’s restraining orders to roommates and also the evidentiary showing made by her roommates to obtain those orders, whom she asserts were actually doing whatever it took to make her leave.

A jury found defendant Merlin Cody Griffiths guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, residential burglary with an occupant present, felony resisting an executive officer, and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer. On appeal, defendant argues insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdicts regarding assault and burglary, and that a new trial is required due to jury misconduct. We affirm.

Brian Scaccia believes medical professionals at a Sutter Health facility conspired to kill his mother, Anne Ringkamp. After his mother died, Scaccia sued these medical professionals, Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region (Sutter Health), and his brother, John Scaccia (John). The parties proceeded to engage in discovery. When the discovery matters became voluminous, the trial court issued a tentative ruling that appointed a discovery referee for all discovery motions. The trial court subsequently narrowed the scope of the appointment. Scaccia responded by filing the present writ petition in which he seeks to vacate the discovery referee appointment on grounds of indigency. This court originally denied Scaccia’s petition. Scaccia then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court.

The victim and defendants Reginald Vaughn Cornelius and James Anthony Wilder were at a friend’s birthday party. When the victim went to leave, Wilder and Cornelius stopped him and pointed guns at him. The defendants each pistol-whipped the victim, and Wilder shot the victim in the hand. A jury convicted each defendant of assault with a firearm and pistol-whipping, and found true enhancement allegations that each had personally used a firearm and personally caused great bodily injury. The jury also convicted Wilder of assault by discharging a firearm and Cornelius of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Plaintiff Joseph J. Albanese, Inc. (Albanese) constructed several projects in the City of San Jose. When construction impinged on a right of way, the city required Albanese to retain the services of off-duty San Jose Police Department (SJPD) officers to control traffic during the construction. Albanese applied to the SJPD to become a secondary employer of the police officers and signed an employer conditions agreement and an indemnity agreement. The SJPD supplied officers to direct traffic at the construction sites. Subsequently, the Employment Development Department (Department) determined that for the purposes of unemployment insurance taxes, Albanese was the employer of the police officers while they performed their traffic control duties. Albanese appealed, and the trial court affirmed the Department’s decision. Albanese appeals, challenging the court’s interpretation of the terms of the conditions and indemnifications agreements. We shall affirm the judgment.

This is another case arising out of the “Great Dissolution” of California’s redevelopment agencies. (See City of Pasadena v. Cohen (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1463.) This enactment (Assem. Bill No. 26 (2011-2012 1st Ex. Sess.) enacted as Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 5 (Assembly Bill 1X 26)), which took effect on June 28, 2011, “barred any new obligations for redevelopment activity and provided a process to wind up the obligations of the nearly 400 redevelopment agencies then existing, in order that the ever-encroaching ‘tax increment’ share of property taxes paid to the redevelopment agencies could then be redistributed instead to the counties, cities, special districts, and school districts otherwise entitled to these revenues.” (County of Sonoma v. Cohen (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 42, 45 (County of Sonoma); see also California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246-247 (Matosantos).)