CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted on the ground plaintiff’s causes of action under California law for invasion of privacy and unfair business practices were preempted by federal law. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling and affirm the judgment.

C.W. (mother) and J.W., Sr. (father) appeal the orders terminating their parental rights and finding their 23-month-old son, J.W., likely to be adopted. They argue there is insufficient evidence J.W. was adoptable and the court abused its discretion by refusing to place him with a designated relative. We conclude the trial court’s orders have adequate support and therefore affirm.

Defendant and petitioner Vincent Johnny Avalos was convicted in 2007 of attempted premeditated and deliberate murder and other related crimes he committed at 24 years old. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole plus 20 years. Avalos filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming entitlement to an evidentiary hearing to create a record of youth-related factors existent at the time of the offenses. He also contends that his abstract of judgment contains an erroneous order requiring him to submit to HIV and AIDS blood testing while in prison. We issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted. We now grant the petition.

Karimi's sole contention on appeal is that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to adequately investigate whether prejudicial juror bias arose due to an interaction that the jury had with a defense trial witness (Karimi's mother) while waiting in the courtroom hallway during a break in the proceedings. We conclude that Karimi's contention lacks merit, and accordingly we affirm the judgment.

Jorge Albert Rivera, Jr., was charged with felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, sub. (a)(4); count 1) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2). The charging information also alleged (1) Rivera personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim in the commission of count 1 (§ 12022.7, sub. (a)); (2) two prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)); (3) two prior serious felony conviction sentence enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)); and (4) three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In accordance with a plea agreement, Rivera pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the great bodily injury enhancement to count 1, one prior strike conviction and two serious felony prior convictions. Rivera was sentenced to a total of 14 years in prison in accordance with the plea agreement, which included consecutive five-year terms for each of his serious felony prior convictions under section 677, subdivision

Defendant Phillip Gordon appeals a judgment of the trial court entered after he pled guilty to one count of making a criminal threat. Initially, in accordance with the plea agreement, the court placed Gordon on probation. However, after determining that Gordon had violated the terms of his probation by leaving San Diego County without first obtaining the approval of his probation officer, the court revoked Gordon's probation and sentenced him to the upper term of three years in prison.

A jury found defendant Jesse Orlando Barela, Jr. guilty of two attempted murders (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a), counts 1 & 2), corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a), count 3), and felony child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a), count 4). The jury found true that each attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated (§ 189). As to each offense, the jury found true that Barela personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7 subds. (a) & (e)) and personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, in committing the offense (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23), 12022, subd. (b)(1)). As to count 3, the jury found true that Barela, within the previous seven years, had been convicted of violating section 243, subdivision (e), within the meaning of section 273.5, subdivision (f)(2). The court sentenced Barela to two consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole, consecutive to nine years in prison.
Barela now appeals, asserting, as a matter of law, that the

Defendant Jae Koh appeals his convictions for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime and assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury following a jury trial. Appointed counsel on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.

On August 30, 2017, defendant Christian Wilson, along with codefendant Adam Treadwell, were charged with first degree residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459, a felony (count 1), and receiving stolen property exceeding $950 in value in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a), a felony (count 2). On the date of his preliminary hearing, December 13, 2017, defendant plead nolo contendere to count 2 and the trial court dismissed count 1.
Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We have reviewed the record, conclude the record reveals no arguable issue on appeal, and thus affirm.

Deante Smith appeals from a judgment entered following an October 17, 2017 resentencing hearing. He contends he is entitled to another sentencing hearing in light of Senate Bill No. 620, which amended Penal Code section 12022.5, effective January 1, 2018, to give trial courts discretion to strike certain firearm enhancements, and Senate Bill No. 1393, which amended Penal Code sections 667 and 1385, effective January 1, 2019, to give trial courts discretion to strike prior serious felony enhancements. For the reasons explained below, we remand the matter for the trial court to determine whether to strike the enhancements under Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 667, and if an enhancement is stricken, to resentence Smith.

Officer Stephen Scallon (Scallon) is a 25-year Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) veteran with over 18 years’ experience with the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team. On May 24, 2014, Scallon deployed his Taser while attempting to take a potentially suicidal male jumper into custody. That man, Carlos Ocana (Ocana), fell off the parapet ledge of a downtown market and died when he struck the ground below. An administrative adjudication resulted in two counts of misconduct against Scallon for using force and tactics that substantially deviated from approved LAPD training. Scallon also received an official reprimand for his actions. Scallon filed an administrative appeal and the chief of police, Charlie Beck (Chief Beck), sustained the misconduct counts as well as the penalty of an official reprimand. Scallon then sued the City of Los Angeles and Chief Beck, filing a petition for peremptory writ of mandate in superior court. The trial court denied the petition. We affirm th

Adrian Van Anz (Van Anz) suffered injuries when a car being driven by Kimi Ozawa (Ozawa) rear-ended his motorcycle. Van Anz sued Ozawa and after a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Van Anz. After the trial court entered judgment in his favor, Van Anz filed a motion to modify the verdict, or, in the alternative, an order for a new trial on the issue of damages only. The trial court denied the motion and Van Anz appealed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

This is defendant Michael Onley’s second appeal after he was convicted by a jury of the first degree murder of Andrew Todd Cherry and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. (See People v. Diaz (Apr. 15, 2016, B258629) [nonpub. opn.] (Diaz).) In the first appeal, we concluded substantial evidence supported Onley’s murder conviction, but we reversed his judgment because the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to represent himself at the sentencing hearing under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). We remanded the matter for the limited purpose of providing Onley a new hearing on his Faretta motion. We also directed the court to strike Onley’s parole revocation restitution fine.

Defendant and appellant M.B. (mother) is the mother of A.T. (minor). S.T. (father) is minor’s presumed father. Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order summarily denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the court’s denial of mother’s petition.