CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant, Austin Robert Ristaino, entered a plea of guilty to the court to mayhem (count 1; Pen. Code, § 203), assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (count 2; § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and misdemeanor battery (count 3; § 242). Defendant additionally admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim in his commission of the count 2 offense. (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in failing to follow the proper procedural steps before denying defendant’s request for probation. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Salvador Hernandez got into an argument with his girlfriend (Doe). Doe called the police and reported that defendant had slapped her in the face five times; punched her in the face with his fist; thrown a shoe at her hitting her shoulder; and grabbed her by the hair. At trial, she recanted these accusations insisting she was just angry because she found out that day that defendant had been cheating on her. A BWS expert testified for the People.
Defendant was found guilty of corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant resulting in traumatic condition (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted he had suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to serve four years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant claims the trial court failed to give a limiting instruction sua sponte advising the jury on the use of expert testim

Demetriou, Del Guercio, Springer & Francis, Jeffrey Z.B. Springer and Jennifer T. Taggart for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
Plaintiff and appellant Joseph McVeigh (Plaintiff) appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandate (California Environmental Quality Act; state planning and Zoning Law; and La Quinta Municipal Code) (Petition) brought against the City of La Quinta (City) and real parties in interest Case and Lisa Swenson (Real Parties). Real Parties sought approval from the City to build a 5,929-square-foot single family residence on approximately 3.16 acres near the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains in La Quinta (Project). The Project was part of the luxury home development Enclave Mountain Estates (Enclave).

On December 21, 2015, the family court ordered the dissolution of the marriage of Catherine McKinley (Wife) and Russell McKinley (Husband). In June 2015, temporary spousal support and child support were set at zero dollars. On December 21, Wife and Husband entered into a marriage settlement agreement (the Agreement), which reflected the temporary June 2015 support orders “shall continue in full force and effect.” The family court ordered spousal and child support per the Agreement, i.e., zero dollars. In May 2016, Husband requested a modification of the spousal support order. Husband requested $1,000 per month in spousal support. The family court denied Husband’s request.
Husband raises three issues on appeal. First, Husband contends the family court erred by concluding Family Code section 4326 did not apply. Second, Husband asserts the family court erred by finding that, at the time of executing the Agreement, it was reasonably within the expectations of Husband an

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Janet M. Frangie, Judge. Affirmed.
Allen V. Jaffe in pro. per.; Suojanen Law Office and Wayne W. Suojanen for Appellant.
Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe & Nichols, Mitzie L. Dobson, and Michael K. Liu for Defendant and Respondent.
Allen V. Jaffe went to a laser eye surgery clinic to have LASIK surgery on his eyes. He was given a consent form, which disclosed various risks of having any laser eye surgery, including not only LASIK but also PRK. The form further disclosed various differences between LASIK and PRK. Jaffe signed it, consenting to LASIK and denying consent to PRK.
Dr. Jeffrey Wasserstrom was assigned to do the surgery. When he met with Jaffe, however, he refused to perform LASIK, because Jaffe had had a previous LASIK procedure; he said he would only do PRK. Jaffe responded that, in that case, he was canceling the surgery. Dr. Wasserstrom told him, however, that the two procedures were the same, except t

The instant case requires us to interpret Penal Code section 2085.5, subdivision (a). That subdivision allows the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to deduct a portion of an inmate's prison wages if that inmate owes a restitution fine under certain enumerated statutes. (See § 2085.5, subd. (a).)
In 1992, Victor Lee Ellis was sentenced to prison for seven years and was accessed a fine under section 1202.4, which qualified for garnishment under section 2085.5, subdivision (a). In 1999, Ellis finished serving his prison sentence.
Ellis returned to prison in 2011. Under section 2085.5, subdivision (a), the CDCR resumed deducting a portion of Ellis's prison wages based on the fine arising out of his 1992 crime. Ellis now maintains the CDCR does not have authority to garnish his prison wages under section 2085.5, subdivision (a) because he no longer is in custody for the 1992 crime.
We disagree with Ellis's reading of section 2085.5,

A jury convicted Jose Luis Lopes Fontenot of the first degree murder of his stepfather, J.H., in 2011, and it found true the allegation that he intentionally and personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 12022.53, subd. (d); count 1.) A jury also convicted Fontenot of second degree murder and found true the allegation that he intentionally and personally used a firearm in the commission of the 2009 murder of G.B. (§§ 187, subd. (a); 12022.53, subd. (d); count 2.) He was a juvenile when he committed the crime. The trial court sentenced Fontenot to life without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction (count 1), then 25 years to life consecutively for the firearm enhancement. It stayed a sentence of 15 years to life for the second degree murder conviction (count 2), but imposed 25 years to life consecutively for the firearm enhancement. The court also imposed a $10,000 parole restitution fine. (§ 1202.4,

A jury convicted Lonnie J. Philpot of attempted murder and other offenses based on his shooting a gun multiple times at close range into a parked vehicle occupied by two people. He appeals from the judgment entered after this court remanded the case for resentencing so that the trial court could consider whether to strike or dismiss his firearm enhancements. (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5, subd. (c), 12022.53, subd. (h).) Philpot's appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Defendant D.F.'s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asking this court to independently review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2015, at age 16, D.F. was declared a ward of the juvenile court and placed on probation. In March 2016, D.F. was arrested for felony firearm possession in violation of Penal Code section 29610. As a result of this probation violation, he was continued a ward of the juvenile court, custody was removed from his mother, and he was ordered to be placed in a residential rehabilitation program called Gateway. In July 2016, while on the waiting list for Gateway, a subsequent petition was filed alleging D.F. had committed first-degree burglary (§ 459) and grand theft of a gun (§ 487, subd. (d)(2)) in February 2016. On July 25, 2016, D.F. admitted he violated section 459, and the juvenile court dismissed the second allegation. D.

Defendant Raymond Moreno appeals from a judgment of conviction. A jury convicted Moreno of a single count of corporal injury to a spouse, and found true the allegations that in committing the offense, Moreno caused great bodily injury and used a deadly or dangerous weapon. The jury concluded that Moreno had stabbed his wife, E.R.
On appeal, Moreno contends that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support his conviction. Specifically, he asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he is the person who stabbed E.R. on the night in question.
Moreno also contends that the trial court failed to understand that it had the discretion to strike one or both of the nonmandatory enhancements.
In addition, after this appeal was fully briefed, Moreno requested leave to file a supplemental brief to argue that, pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (S.B. 1393), he is entitled to remand for resentencing to allow the trial co

This dependency case commenced in November 2016 when the minor was detained due, primarily, to mother’s substance abuse. The juvenile court declared the minor a dependent child, and both mother and father received reunification services for six and nine months, respectively. During the reunification period, the paternal grandmother requested placement of the minor. Her request was denied because her placement packet was still being processed.
Reunification services were terminated one year later. At the time services were terminated, the juvenile court readdressed the issue of placement of the minor with the paternal grandmother, whose home had been approved for placement. The juvenile court ordered the paternal grandmother to submit to a hair follicle test and directed her not to alter her hair prior to the testing. The paternal grandmother did not comply with the testing order. On November 28, 2017, the juvenile court granted the Shasta County Health and Human Services A

Appointed counsel for defendant James Harold Garner asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)

Following the denial of his suppression motion, defendant David Brown-Williams pleaded no contest to felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced to a stipulated term of two years in state prison.
On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion because he was detained when the encounter with the officer occurred. Finding no detention took place, we shall affirm.

Pardeep Singh entered into an agreement with Dorothy Pollino to buy Pollino’s house and property. Among other things, the agreement provided that if the transaction did not close by September 18, 2015, the agreement would expire. A fire subsequently destroyed Pollino's house and Singh did not pay the previously agreed-upon purchase price by the expiration date.
Singh sued for specific performance, but the trial court entered judgment for Pollino, ruling that the agreement expired under its own terms.
Singh now contends the fire establishes that Pollino breached her contractual obligation to maintain the interior of the house. She claims she showed willingness to perform by sensibly offering to subtract the insurance proceeds from the purchase price, or by offering to build a new house with the insurance proceeds. She argues the trial court should have ordered specific performance of the agreement. Disagreeing with Singh's arguments, we will affirm the judgment.