CA Unpub Decisions

This case involves a dispute related to the funding of a new charter school in Stockton. “The Legislature is charged with providing a public education system for the citizens of the State of California. [Citations.] It has long done that through the establishment of public school districts [citation] and, more recently, through charter schools as well [citation].” (Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 205 (Today’s Fresh Start).) Charter schools are “public schools funded with public money but run by private individuals or entities rather than traditional public school districts.” (Ibid.)

In 2018, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant Tyshonn Cade (defendant) with two felonies: possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800(a)(1) ) and carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850(a)). The charges were predicated on evidence that, on July 24, 2017, two police officers saw defendant discard a loaded, semi-automatic pistol after jaywalking. The officers arrested defendant and he admitted that he had been carrying the pistol in his right front pants pocket.

Though Richard M. (father) had more than a year to comply with the juvenile court’s order to complete a batterer’s intervention program and anger management counseling to address his violent and controlling behavior, he never did. So, when the court terminated jurisdiction over Allyssa M., Ashley M., E.M., Katherine M., and X.M., it awarded sole legal and physical custody to Allison S. (mother). Father was granted monitored visitation. We are asked to decide whether the court abused its discretion by denying father joint legal custody of the children. Because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd for the court to conclude the children’s interests would be best served by giving mother sole authority over decisions about their health, education, and welfare, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Robert David Cox appeals his burglary conviction. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On November 14, 2018, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time elapsed, and defendant submitted no brief or letter. On January 3, 2019, we requested the parties to submit letter briefs regarding the effect of Senate Bill No. 1393 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013). Both parties agree that the matter should be remanded to permit the trial court to exercise discretion under that statute. Finding no other arguable issues, we affirm the judgment and remand with directions.

Appellant Craig Lewis Green was charged with one count of resisting an executive officer. The second amended information alleged that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the offense It further alleged that appellant suffered eight priors: one prior strike; one prior serious felony; and six prior prison terms. A jury convicted appellant of resisting an executive officer and found the great bodily injury allegation not true. The trial court found true all eight priors. It sentenced appellant to the high term of three years, doubled due to the strike prior. The court struck as inapplicable the five-year term for the prior serious felony. It imposed and stayed a one-year term for one of the prior prison terms as duplicative of the strike prior. The court then added one consecutive year for each of the remaining five prior prison terms, for a total prison term of 11 years.

Mother N.D. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders finding she failed to protect her children Y.D., N.D., and E.D. from the physical abuse of Y.D.’s and N.D.’s father, J.W. (father). She does not contest the court’s jurisdictional findings based on father’s physical abuse, but contends substantial evidence does not support the jurisdictional findings as to her. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) contends mother’s appeal does not raise a justiciable issue and the court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over all three children.
Because there is no effective relief we can provide mother even if we accepted her contention, we decline to address it and dismiss the appeal.

Defendant and appellant Jose Luis Mercado (defendant) appeals his carjacking conviction. Defendant contends that the conviction was not supported by substantial evidence showing a joint operation of act and intent. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by incorrectly modifying an unnecessary instruction regarding after-acquired intent, and that the instruction was misleading when combined with incorrect legal argument by the prosecutor. As we find no merit to defendant’s claims, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs and appellants Ana Maria Dulanto (Ana) and Jose Manuel Dulanto (Jose) appeal from the judgment of dismissal entered against them and in favor of defendants and respondents Rebecca Marie Kuhn (Kuhn) and ProHealth Partners, a Medical Group, Inc. (ProHealth) after the trial court issued an order granting terminating sanctions against plaintiffs for failing to comply with a discovery order and denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the terminating sanctions order. We affirm the judgment.

K.E. appeals an order of the juvenile court sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition finding he committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (id., § 245, subd. (a)(4)). We conclude, among other things, that substantial evidence supports the judgment. We affirm.

Appellant Payman Borhan (appellant) is a state prisoner serving an indeterminate term of 15 years to life following his conviction on two counts of lewd acts with a child under 14 years of age. Appellant appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to appellant’s complaint against his former attorney, Lisa Bassis (respondent) without leave to amend. The operative complaint alleged causes of action for professional negligence, intentional tort, fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court found the causes of action for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional tort to be time barred. Alternatively, these causes of action failed because appellant failed to allege factual innocence. The court further found that appellant had not stated a cause of action for actual fraud because he failed to allege with particularity a misrepresentation or reliance.

Defendant and appellant Pauline White (White) appeals from an order awarding plaintiff and respondent City of Monrovia (City) $102,669 in attorney fees incurred in White’s prior consolidated appeals from orders denying her special motion to strike, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the City’s complaint; granting the City’s anti-SLAPP motion and striking most of the causes of action in White’s cross-complaint against the City; and awarding the City attorney fees as the prevailing party on the anti-SLAPP motions. We affirm the order awarding the City its attorney fees on appeal.

Defendant Andrea Knott appeals from a probation order entered after she was convicted of one count of welfare fraud and two counts of perjury. She contends that there is insufficient evidence to support one of her perjury convictions because her false statement was not material; that both perjury convictions should be reversed because the court failed to instruct the jury that evidence of a statement’s falsity must be corroborated; that the court improperly excluded defense evidence that would have impeached the prosecution’s main witness; that the court erroneously imposed various court fees as probation conditions; and that the court improperly ordered concurrent probationary terms for two of the three counts. We conclude there is insufficient evidence to support count 6 and the court’s instructional error was prejudicial as to count 5.

Sok Houet Phan (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered following a bench trial. The judgment invalidated a purported 2015 election of the Board of Directors of the Khmer Buddhist Association (KBA). Appellant was one of the declared winners of the invalid 2015 election.
Appellant was recently before this court in a related matter. In Khmer Buddhist Association v. Phan, we affirmed a trial court judgment invalidating certain purported real property transfers from KBA to appellant’s organization, the “Buddha For World Peace Organization” (BWPO), and awarding KBA $1,052,337 for appellant’s repeated and open violations of Penal Code section 496. We refer to the prior opinion as necessary.
Following the illegal transfers of property, appellant and other members of BWPO purported to hold a special election in January 2015. Appellant declared he had been elected vice chairman of KBA.

David Ellis, plaintiff in this personal injury asbestos action, petitions for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its August 2018 order denying his motion for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a) (section 36(a)). Ellis contends the trial court abused its discretion when it ruled that he had not met his burden of proof under section 36(a). We agree. Ellis presented undisputed and convincing evidence that met this burden of proof. Therefore, the trial court had the mandatory duty to grant him trial preference. We shall issue a peremptory writ of mandate Ellis requests.