CA Unpub Decisions

Oscar Campos appeals from a judgment after a jury trial. Campos was convicted of two counts of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code § 288, subd. (a) (section 288(a)) and sentenced to a five-year prison term. His appellate counsel has filed a brief that raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having conducted that review, we affirm the judgment.

Kevin Webster, who also uses the name Kevin Gilmore, contends that Kendra Webster prevented him from receiving an inheritance from their father, Willie Webster, who passed away in 2013. For clarity, we will refer to these parties by their first names. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend to Kevin’s first amended complaint for intentional interference with an expected inheritance, fraud and negligence. In this pro per appeal, Kevin contends he has a right to maintain the underlying lawsuit to prove that he is Willie’s son and rightful heir. We affirm the judgment.

Multiple investors prevailed in a lawsuit against Xiao Jie Ma aka Jessica Ma (Ma), Focus Management Group, LLC (Focus), and Bill Chao (collectively Defendants) for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract by securing a default judgment. This appeal arises from Ma’s effort to secure reimbursement from Bill Chao aka Bing Zhao (Chao or Zhao) of a portion of the judgment she paid to satisfy one of the judgment creditors.
Zhao resisted Ma’s attempt at reimbursement by moving for relief from the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) on the grounds the judgment was void because the plaintiffs’ complaint did not give adequate notice of the damages being sought against him in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 580. The trial court agreed and granted relief. We disagree and reverse.

Point Pillar Project Developers, LLC (“Point Pillar”) built a hotel using Advantage wood products distributed by Kelleher Corporation (Kelleher) and sold by Home Depot U.S.A. (Home Depot) (collectively “Defendants”). Within six months of installation, deterioration appeared in wood used for the exterior trim. After 18 months, there was peeling, flaking, and a general weakening of the wood. In March 2009, Point Pillar first contacted Home Depot about the damage.
On March 7, 2014, Point Pillar sued Defendants for damages resulting from use of the defective wood. Point Pillar amended its complaint in October 2015 to add claims for breach of warranty and fraud after its wood expert issued a report on the causes of the deterioration. Defendants were granted summary judgment on the ground that all causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. We affirm the judgment

Petitioner Todd Roschelle was charged by information filed October 6, 2017 with two counts of violating former Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a) (unlawful transportation for sale of marijuana). Count 1 was alleged to have been committed on or about September 12, 2016; count 2 was alleged to have been committed on or about September 1, 2016 to September 20, 2017.
At the preceding preliminary hearing, the magistrate had allowed the People’s principal witness, Postal Inspector Jamon Parham, to testify to hearsay over defense objection under Penal Code section 872, which states the qualifications that an officer must have to testify to hearsay at a preliminary hearing. The magistrate also denied petitioner’s motion to quash and traverse a warrant and suppress evidence, which was heard in conjunction with the preliminary hearing, and held him to answer.

Plaintiff Cynthia Williams appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in her personal injury action against Devisree and Kumar Suresh. The jury found Devisree Suresh negligent, but its damages award did not cover future surgical treatment for plaintiff’s back injury. Plaintiff seeks reversal and a new trial, contending that the trial court improperly struck her medical expert’s testimony on her need for lumbar surgery, thus preventing the jury from awarding her damages for that treatment. On this record we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling and therefore must affirm the judgment.

Dependency proceedings involving now six-year-old G.R. (the minor) were initiated in the Orange County Juvenile Court when the minor had been in the state of California for less than six months. The juvenile court failed to make any factual findings regarding the minor’s home state pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.), and failed to communicate with the possible home state—El Salvador—as required by the UCCJEA. The juvenile court proceeded to issue jurisdictional and dispositional orders, and to terminate the parental rights of the minor’s parents, B.P. (mother) and N.G. (father). Mother appeals.

Esmail Ghane, an intelligent and educated man, has fought a long and arduous fight for reversals of convictions and denials of motions. We have consolidated these two appeals, the latest in that battle, because they raise similar issues and he has filed identical briefs in them after his appointed attorney filed a Wende notification informing us he could find no arguable issues in either case.
In an earlier iteration of Mr. Ghane’s battle, we described the history of the case as “long, tortuous and torturous.” We noted that the many appeals have stemmed “from a six-count felony complaint filed at the beginning of the century [and the case] has wended its way through several trial judges, several psychiatrists and several hearings . . . .” We provide below the precis of that history that we outlined the last time appellant was before us, in 2015.

The primary issue in this case is identification. Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination he is the person who assaulted and attempted to rob the elderly proprietor of a coin shop in Huntington Beach. But, appellant’s phone was found at the scene of the crime, and it contained text messages indicating he intended to commit a robbery that day. We believe these facts, combined with the other evidence presented at trial, constitute substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We are also convinced the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were correct, despite appellant’s claim they violated his state and federal rights. We thus affirm the judgment.

Petitioner seeks permission to file a belated notice of appeal based on trial counsel’s failure to file an appeal following enactment of Senate Bill No. 180 (2017-2018 reg. Sess.) effective October 11, 2017, 13 days after petitioner’s sentencing on September 28, 2017. The new legislation made a three-year sentencing enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c), inapplicable to petitioner.
The Attorney General was given an opportunity to file opposition to the request and told that its failure to do so would be treated as consent to the requested relief being granted without further proceedings. The Attorney General filed an informal response agreeing petitioner’s “allegations appear to be sufficient to make a prima facie showing for relief from default under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (Roe v. Flores-Ortega (2000) 528 U.S. 470, 480.)”
Accordingly, this court concludes petitioner is entitled to relief.

Appellant Benigno Melendes Sanchez appeals from the sentence the court imposed after it granted Sanchez’s petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) to recall his sentence and resentence him. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm. However, our review of the record disclosed that there are several errors in Sanchez’s abstract of judgment and we will direct the trial court to correct them.

Defendant Neng Xiong contends on appeal the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow him to withdraw his plea. He argues that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to inform him of the immigration consequences of his plea, and that he was reasonably unaware his plea would result in deportation. We affirm.

In this marriage dissolution proceeding, appellant Kurt Allan Peters (Husband) contends the trial court erred in characterizing certain assets as community property rather than as his separate property and erred in various orders of reimbursement.
We conclude the trial court did not err in (1) characterizing Husband’s ownership interest in Peters Property Management, a partnership, as community property; (2) characterizing certain retirement accounts as community property; (3) concluding the community held a one-half ownership interest in a condominium with Husband’s parents; and (4) finding Husband breached a fiduciary duty when he transferred all of the rents collected from the condominium’s tenants to his parents.

Defendant Herbert Stanley Johnson was one of three perpetrators who attacked and robbed two victims. He was convicted of two counts of second degree robbery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and one count of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury. In this appeal, he argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of one of the robberies and one of the assaults, for which the prosecution’s theory required him to be an aider and abettor; (2) the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction on the elements of robbery, which was prejudicial as to one of the robbery counts; and (3) the sentence for one of the robbery counts should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654. We reject these arguments.
Johnson was 16 years old at the time of the offenses.