CA Unpub Decisions

In March 2018, the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles filed a felony complaint against defendant and appellant Jesus Chavez (defendant) charging him with unlawful possession of ammunition in violation of Penal Code section 30305(a)(1). According to a report prepared by the probation office, the charge was filed after law enforcement officers conducting a probation compliance check at defendant’s residence found him in possession of 44 rounds of ammunition, which he was prohibited from having as a result of his prior conviction for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.

Ronald Larry Ledesma appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of rape and sexual penetration by a foreign object of an intoxicated person (Pen. Code, §§ 261, subd. (a)(3), 289, subd. (e)); counts 2 and 4) and two lesser included offenses of battery (§ 242; counts 3 and 5). The jury also found true the allegations on counts 2 and 4 that he had two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to 63 years to life: consecutive 25-years-to-life terms on counts 2 and 4, two consecutive five-year terms for prior serious felony convictions, and three consecutive one-year terms for prior prison terms. It stayed the sentences on counts 3 and 5.

Tatianna L., the mother of dependent child H.Y., appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order on the ground that the juvenile court erroneously found that the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)) was inapplicable. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

A jury found defendant Martin Cruz guilty of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) and disobeying a domestic relations court order in violation of section 273.6, subdivision (a). At sentencing, the trial court issued a 10-year domestic violence protective order pursuant to section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1) for the protection of victim A.F., who was defendant’s neighbor.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by issuing the domestic violence protective order because there was no statutory authority to do so. The Attorney General concedes and we agree that the court erred in issuing the protective order. Thus, we will modify the judgment to strike the protective order and affirm the judgment as modified.

Plaintiff and appellant Selective 901 Truman, LLC (Selective) appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award that determined the fair rental value of real property that Selective leases to defendant and respondent Goodrich & Hops Properties West (Goodrich).
We conclude the trial court properly rejected Selective’s various theories as to why the award should be vacated, and that it properly confirmed the award.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Armando Hernandez (defendant) of assault with a deadly weapon. The parties agree the trial court erred at sentencing by issuing a three-year post-conviction protective order, so we decide only two disputed issues: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s Romero motion as to a 1997 assault with a firearm conviction that would subject him to a Three Strikes law indeterminate sentence, and whether a remand is in order due to a recent legislative change in sentencing law.

Dr. Kamyar Cohanshohet appeals from the superior court’s order to produce the medical records of five of his patients in connection with an investigation into his prescription of controlled substances to these patients. Because the state has failed to demonstrate good cause to obtain these records, we reverse the order.

Petitioner and appellant Jeffrey Siegel is the administrator of the estate of Antone Elias Nino (decedent). Mr. Siegel (appellant) appeals from the probate court’s denial of his Petition for Application of Sale Proceeds and Determination of Expenses of Administration pursuant to Probate Code sections 10361 and 10361.5, and the denial of his petition for order conveying property pursuant to section 850.
We affirm both orders.

Respondent Dayco Funding Corporation filed a breach of contract action seeking to enforce a commercial loan guaranty against appellant Henry Danpour and Menashi Cohen. Cohen settled with Dayco, and obtained a determination of good faith settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. Dayco then filed a motion for summary judgment against Danpour seeking the amount due under the loan agreement. The trial court granted the motion, and entered judgment in Dayco’s favor.

Appellant State Farm General Insurance Company appeals an order vacating an insurance appraisal award that valued the loss respondents Khosrow and Violet Lalezarian had sustained to their property during a rainstorm. The trial court concluded the appraisal panel exceeded its authority by making factual determinations whether certain construction costs the Lalezarians had included in their claim were necessary to repair damage caused by the storm. We affirm.

In accordance with our prior notification to the parties that we might do so, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177–180.) Petitioner’s right to relief is obvious, and no useful purpose would be served by issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing, and oral argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236–1237, 1240–1241; Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1240–1244.) In our order requesting briefing, we provided Palma notice.

O.B. appeals after the juvenile court sustained the allegations of a wardship petition (Welf. & Inst., § 602) alleging that he committed the offenses of carjacking, second degree robbery, receiving stolen property and taking/driving a vehicle without permission. (Pen. Code, §§ 215, subd. (a), 211, 496d, subd. (a); Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) He contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the true findings; (2) he was deprived of due process because the same judge presided over the detention and jurisdictional hearing and reviewed material in the detention report before making a jurisdictional finding; and (3) the finding on the receiving stolen property count must be set aside because it is based on the same stolen property as the carjacking and robbery. We reverse the adjudication for receiving stolen property but otherwise affirm.

Defendant Edison Reinaldo Bolanos-Anrango appeals his conviction for oral copulation of an unconscious person. He contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that the victim was unconscious of the nature of the act and that the court erred in imposing the upper term sentence of eight years in prison. We reject both contentions and shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Jasjit Singh was convicted by jury of forcible rape, rape of an intoxicated person, lewd conduct with a child under 16 at least 10 years younger, and multiple other sexual assault charges. The court sentenced him to 14 years in state prison. Defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in finding just cause to dismiss Juror No. 8 during deliberations and that the juror’s dismissal violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process, a fair and impartial jury, and a unanimous verdict. Defendant also contends that the court erred prejudicially when it denied defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
We disagree and shall affirm the trial court’s rulings.