CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants appeal from an order denying their motions to compel arbitration, arguing that the trial court erred by finding no enforceable arbitration agreement. We will affirm the order. For the reasons stated here, defendants have failed to show through custom and habit evidence that the broker had initialed the arbitration clause on the original residential listing agreement, or that the defendant realtor had assented to arbitration through other conduct.

A jury found defendant Chazz Andre Jackson guilty of forcible rape and related crimes: pimping, pandering, human trafficking, human trafficking of a minor, witness intimidation, and attempted criminal threats. The trial court found true four out-of-state prior serious felony convictions and imposed a lengthy prison sentence.
The trial court had dismissed the same action in two prior superior court cases. On appeal, Jackson claims that this third case violates the so-called “two dismissal” rule. (Pen. Code, § 1387, subd. (a).) We disagree. There is a “[g]ood cause” exception that applies under the circumstances. (§ 1387, subd. (c)(1).)

Frank F. (the minor) admitted committing vandalism and possessing graffiti tools. On appeal, the minor challenges the juvenile court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence and the court’s order denying his Pitchess motion.
Given the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the minor’s encounter with the police was consensual and not a detention. The seizure of a spray paint can discarded by the minor was therefore not subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny, and the juvenile court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Having reviewed the sealed records of the juvenile court’s in camera hearing, we conclude those records do not establish that the court actually reviewed the documents in question. Therefore, we reverse and remand the matter for a new Pitchess motion hearing. If, after the hearing, the court determines there is no information to be disclosed to the defense, the adjudication and disposition order shall be reinstated.

A Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed on behalf of M.C. and A.C. At a section 366.26 hearing, the parental rights of mother (A.M.) and father (J.C.) were terminated. Father contends the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights because the evidence established the beneficial parent-child relationship exception as to him.
Mother’s appeal raises no issues as to her termination of parental rights. However, she asserts that if the termination of father’s parental rights is reversed, her parental rights must also be reinstated.
We affirm.

The court adjudged appellant B.B. a ward of the court after it sustained allegations in a petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) charging her with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460, subd. (a)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Minor, A.M., appeals from a juvenile court’s adjudication and dispositional orders entered finding him in contempt under Penal Code section 166 based on failure to obey all laws. He argues that substantial evidence does not support the finding that he failed to obey all laws due to his possession of marijuana. Appellant also contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by punishing him pursuant to the general criminal contempt statute (Pen. Code, § 166) rather than the juvenile contempt statute (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 213) and that use of the criminal contempt statute was contrary to equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Respondent concedes error as there was not sufficient evidence that appellant failed to obey all laws and that it was improper to use the criminal contempt statute.

On July 10, 2007, a criminal complaint was filed charging appellant, Adolfo Leyva, with first degree murder. Count 1 also alleged a special circumstance that the murder was committed during an attempted carjacking and an enhancement for being armed with a gun. The complaint further alleged attempted carjacking (§§ 664 & 190.2, subd. (a)(17); count 2), attempted murder , and assault with a firearm. Counts 2 and 3 alleged an enhancement for being armed with a firearm as alleged in count 1. Leyva pled not guilty on July 10, 2007. His original counsel declared a conflict and new counsel, Michael Platt, was substituted in to represent Leyva during a hearing on July 24, 2007. Beginning with this hearing, the case was continued numerous times over the ensuing ten years with Leyva entering time waivers through September 2017. Although Leyva’s counsel Platt was relieved as private counsel on July 10, 2013, he continued to represent Leyva.

Appellant Larry Earl Thomas pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800) and admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

After a contested hearing, the court found appellant Steven Thomas Marquez violated his probation and it lifted the stay on a seven-year prison term it had previously suspended. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appellant Antonio Carlos Gonzalez pled no contest to unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)/count 1) and admitted three prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we determined that portions of Gonzalez’s sentence are unauthorized. Therefore, we modify the judgment to correct the unauthorized portions and affirm as modified.

Defendant Ramon Velasquez Salas contends on appeal (1) the trial court abused its discretion and violated due process when it resentenced him pursuant to Proposition 36, and (2) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

Appellant Richard Reynolds was convicted by a jury of violating Penal Code sections 459 and 460, subdivision (a), first degree burglary. In a court trial, it was found true that Reynolds had suffered a serious felony conviction pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1); one prison prior pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b); and five prior strike convictions pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (a)-(d). A determinate term of five years, followed by an indeterminate term of 25 years to life was imposed.
Reynolds appealed his convictions and counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Subsequently, Senate Bill No. 1393 was signed and became effective on January 1, 2019, effectively granting the trial court discretion to strike section 667, subdivision (a) enhancements. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, §§ 1-2; People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961, 971-972.)

Gerawan Farming, Inc. (Gerawan) filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order directing the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or the board) to reverse an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) interlocutory evidentiary ruling issued during an unfair labor practice (ULP) proceeding. Specifically, Gerawan seeks an order compelling the board to (1) vacate the ALJ’s ruling revoking two subpoenas Gerawan served on the board and the board’s general counsel (general counsel), and (2) produce the records sought by the subpoenas. Gerawan also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting the board’s refusal to allow interlocutory review of the ALJ’s ruling and the conduct of the board and general counsel, must be declared unconstitutional and enjoined. The board demurred to the petition on the ground the superior court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Gerawan’s claims because Gerawan had not exhausted its administrative remedies before the board.

What began as a verbal altercation between two couples ended in a violent street fight. One of the couples, Sammy E. and Jeannette H., suffered serious injuries. The other couple, codefendants Manuel Antonio Vela and Gloria Ramirez, was arrested and charged in a 10-count information with two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)), four counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), two counts of mayhem (§ 203) and two counts of aggravated mayhem (§ 205).