CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Kent Gladden appealed after a jury convicted him of felony driving under the influence. His appellate attorney has asked the court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

Janet Check appeals from an order awarding her some, but not all, of the attorney fees she sought after successfully suing respondent Raley’s, her employer, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). She argues that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award her all of the fees she sought. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant Michael Lucien Garcia pleaded no contest to multiple charges, including four counts of second degree robbery. Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to replace appointed counsel, (2) granting his motion to represent himself, (3) not inquiring into the reasons for his request to withdraw his no contest pleas, and (4) accepting his no contest pleas without an adequate factual basis. Defendant also argues his case must be remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike his firearm enhancement. We agree with defendant and the Attorney General that the matter must be remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike the firearm enhancement, and otherwise affirm.

In 2014, William Fontana pleaded no contest to a felony charge of driving under the influence causing injury and admitted a prior conviction for driving under the influence. He was granted probation under conditions that prohibited him from using any non-prescribed or illegal substances, including medical marijuana, unless authorized by the court, and required him to complete an outpatient treatment program if so directed by the probation department. In 2017, Fontana admitted that he violated the conditions of his probation by using marijuana and failing to participate in a drug treatment program. In connection with the sentencing on his probation violation, he asked the trial court to allow him to use medical marijuana.

Appellant was found guilty of several sexual offenses committed against a child, as well as of the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Because a defendant cannot be convicted of both continuous child abuse and the specific sexual offenses upon which the continuous child abuse charge is based, the trial court vacated the count of continuous child abuse. Appellant contends the court was required instead to vacate the individual counts and leave him convicted of only continuous child abuse. He additionally contends that the court abused its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to introduce evidence of prior sexual misconduct, and that there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction on one of the individual counts. We affirm.

In this nuisance abatement action, the city of Vallejo (City) filed an action against LM Connexions (LMC) alleging violation of local zoning restrictions based on LMC’s retail business practice of operating a computer game “skill contest.” By way of defense, LMC denied any zoning violation, relying on a broad interpretation of the Vallejo Municipal Code, and in support of its position sought to present oral testimony at a hearing on the City’s request for a preliminary injunction. The court rejected LMC’s reading of the Vallejo Municipal Code, declined to hear LMC’s proffered witness testimony, and granted preliminary injunctive relief. Agreeing with the City that LMC’s “skill contest” falls outside the authorized uses for which the property is zoned under the Vallejo Municipal Code, the court ruled that the City had shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a nuisance per se claim and that the balance of harms tipped in its favor. This appeal by LMC is f

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Nicholas Hayes pled no contest to one count of possession of metal knuckles (Pen. Code, § 21810) and one count of carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subd. (a)). The court sentenced Hayes to an aggregate term of two years in the county jail pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), with the concluding six months to be served on mandatory supervision. On appeal, Hayes contends the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.

In 2011, the trial court entered a money judgment in favor of four plaintiffs, including Ken Roe, against Jessica Ma. In July 2016, after a judgment lien was placed on her real property in Alameda County, Ma delivered a cashier’s check to Roe for the full amount of the monetary award owed to him. She did not pay the other three judgment creditors. Ma moved to compel Roe to enter an acknowledgement of full satisfaction of judgment but was denied relief. Over two months after accepting the cashier’s check, Roe moved to recover the attorney’s fees and costs arising from his efforts to enforce the judgment. He was granted some but not all of the requested attorney’s fees.

Defendant Montie Kamarie Henderson was convicted of first degree residential robbery with personal use of a firearm. On appeal, defendant contends an in-court identification procedure using a single photograph was unduly suggestive and violated his due process rights. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Adam Ravaglia appeals his conviction for two counts of insurance fraud, one in violation of Penal Code section 550, subdivision (a)(1), and the other in violation of section 550, subdivision (b)(2). Ravaglia raises four issues: (1) the trial court erred in discharging a juror for good cause during deliberations; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying substitute defense counsel’s request for a continuance; (3) the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule; and (4) the cumulative impact of these errors requires reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

Seller agreed to sell her house to buyer for $350,000, both of them represented by a dual agent. The date for close of escrow came, with buyer not having performed all that was required of her. Efforts to resolve the matter were not successful, and seller canceled the sale. Buyer sued for specific performance, and seller cross-complained against the agent and the listing broker. The matter proceeded to a nine-day trial, following which the jury returned a 16-page special verdict that among other things advisedly granted specific performance. That verdict also found for seller on three of her six causes of action, but awarded little by way of damages, specifically “economic damages” of $0, and non-economic damages in two alternatives: $350,021 “if [seller] has to transfer the property to buyer,” and $17,500 if she does not.

Carlos Guzman Garza was convicted of an array of crimes arising from cosmetic medical procedures he performed on nine women, two of whom sustained great bodily injury, while he falsely posed as a physician or physician’s assistant. He was also convicted of sexual offenses against two of his victims.
Guzman Garza raises four discrete challenges to his conviction. He asserts: (1) his convictions for assault and battery must be reversed because the victims consented to the procedures he performed on them; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for his sexual penetration of victim Miriam P.; (3) his convictions for battery and sexual battery as to Miriam P. must be reversed because they were lesser included offenses of sexual penetration; and (4) the court erred when it admitted evidence of an uncharged sexual assault pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108.

The City of Glendale (the City) operates its own electric utility, Glendale Water and Power (the Utility). The City increased the Utility’s electric rates in 2013 based on a rate study that included revenue for an annual transfer of funds from the Utility to the City’s general fund. Petitioner and respondent Glendale Coalition for Better Government (the Coalition) filed a petition for declaratory relief and a writ of mandate on the grounds that the City had failed to follow accounting provisions of the city charter and the annual amount transferred to the general fund was a tax requiring voter approval. The trial court ordered the City to adhere to the charter’s accounting provisions and found the 2013 rates were a tax, because the annual transfer was not a cost of providing electric service. The City appeals from the portion of the judgment finding the new rates were a tax and ordering credits to ratepayers. The City contends on appeal that: (1) the action is barred by the

A charter city operating its own electric utility increased electric rates in 2013 based on a rate study that allocated an annual amount to the city’s general fund. A utility employee and his union filed a petition for declaratory relief and a writ of mandate on the ground that the annual amount transferred to the general fund was a tax requiring voter approval. The trial court found the new rates were a tax, because the annual transfer was not a cost of providing electric service. On appeal, the City contends the lawsuit is barred by the 120-day statute of limitations provided in Public Utilities Code section 10004.5. We conclude, however, that the city waived this statute of limitations defense by failing to timely raise Public Utilities Code section 10004.5. The City further contends the electric rates imposed in 2013 were not a tax requiring voter approval. We find that the rates set in 2013 exceeded the city’s reasonable costs in providing electric services. The amount