CA Unpub Decisions

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.

This is the third appeal arising out of an ongoing dispute among the parties over the estate of Stanley Kwong (Stan). In the original action, Kwong I, Stan’s mother Lau and his brother Larry sought an accounting of Stan’s estate relying on Stan’s financial records in the possession of Stan’s surviving spouse Jennifer Shuk-Han Kwok (Kwok) and Stan’s company California Financial Mortgage Corporation (California Financial). After the trial court issued a final judgment in Kwong I, Kwok filed a second complaint, Kwong II, alleging four causes of action against Stan’s two surviving siblings, Larry and Jeanne, based on their alleged theft of Stan’s financial records. The current action, Kwong III, arises out of a dispute between Kwok, the trustee of Stan’s community property trust, and Stan’s sister Jeanne, the trustee of Stan’s separate property trust (separate property trust) along with her daughters.

T.G. (father) and C.G. (mother) are the parents of seven-year-old I.G. (born in November 2011) and one-year-old H.G. (born in November 2017). They each petition for extraordinary writ relief from an order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to terminate their parental rights. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450 et seq.) We will deny the petitions.

Defendant Fernando Covarrubias Flores filed petitions to have two convictions dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4. On appeal, Flores contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying both petitions. Flores also maintains that his counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court was required to grant one of the petitions and for misstating that case’s procedural history. The Attorney General concedes error with respect to the trial court’s denial of one of the petitions but argues that the trial court acted within its discretion in the second case. We agree that the trial court erred in denying one of Flores’s petitions, but conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the other.

Mother, A.C. appeals a dispositional order entered pursuant to Welfare and Institutions section 300, declaring her children R.S. and T.S dependents, and removing them from the custody of both parents. Mother fails to raise any arguable issues, and so we must dismiss the appeal. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.).)

Mother, A.C. appeals a dispositional order entered pursuant to Welfare and Institutions section 300, declaring her children R.S. and T.S dependents, and removing them from the custody of both parents. Mother fails to raise any arguable issues, and so we must dismiss the appeal. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.).)

Frank Hill Thomas appeals from an order of commitment, filed June 16, 2016, which extended his commitment for two years (January 23, 2015 to January 23, 2017) pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b) (hereafter 1026.5(b)). That section governs a proceeding to extend the involuntary commitment of a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI).

The juvenile court petition alleged the minor, R.M., committed a robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), unlawfully possessed a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610), carried a concealed and loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 25400, subds. (a)(2), (c)(6)), and resisted and delayed a police officer in the performance of his duty (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The juvenile court found the robbery and possession of a concealed and loaded firearm true. It found the other two charges not true and dismissed them. The court declared minor a ward of the court and ordered him committed to juvenile hall or another appropriate facility for two years as a condition of probation.

A jury convicted Christopher Allen Strand of three sex offenses. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true a prior strike and one prior serious felony conviction. The court sentenced Strand to state prison for 76 years to life, including imposing two five-year enhancements for the prior serious felony conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a).
On appeal, Strand contended the trial court prejudicially erred by sustaining the prosecutor’s objection to questions his attorney asked two defense witnesses. He further claimed the prosecutor’s misconduct in closing and rebuttal arguments impermissibly reduced the prosecution’s burden of proof. Finding no reversible error, we affirmed the judgment.

In this high stakes shareholder derivative lawsuit, defendants Alieu B. M. Conteh (Conteh), Odessa Capital Inc., Dominique Financial, Ltd., OOA ONE, LLC, and OOA TWO, LLC (collectively, defendants), appeal from a default judgment entered against them which is arguably valued at approximately $94 million. The judgment, which awarded plaintiffs James R. Lindsey, as trustee of the Lindsey Family Trust, William Buck Johns, Wymont Services, Ltd. and Marc van Antro (collectively, plaintiffs), a constructive trust on behalf of nominal defendant African Wireless, Inc. (African Wireless) over certain shares in two telecommunications businesses, resulted from terminating sanctions being granted against defendants by a general reference discovery referee. The referee found defendants engaged in a pattern of discovery abuse, not the least of which was violating three of the referee’s prior discovery orders.

After remand from a prior reversal, defendant Ildefonso Perez appeals his sentence of 25 years to life for a conviction of second degree murder, attempted murder, and the imposition of a sentence enhancement. We originally remanded this matter to conduct a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), because Perez was 17 years old at the time of the crime.

A jury convicted appellant Robin Duane Boyer of involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (b); count I) for the shooting death of Brandon Pacheco. The jury found true that appellant personally inflicted the fatal injury and he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). He was also convicted of two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts II & III) stemming from the same incident, and the jury found true firearm enhancements (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in these two counts. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seven years.

Andy Dean Abegg appeals from the judgment following a jury verdict that found him guilty of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and a jury finding that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, namely a bat, during the commission of the crime (Pen. Code, §§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, subd (c)(23)).

Following a contested adjudication hearing on a wardship proceeding (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), the court made a true finding that Eddie P. (the Minor) had committed a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The Minor was declared a ward of the court and was committed to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days. He was also ordered to comply with various conditions of probation. The Minor did not object to any of the conditions of probation.