CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff North Park Preservation Coalition (Coalition) appeals from a judgment following a bench trial in favor of the City of San Diego (City) and real parties in interest Jack in the Box, Inc. and John O. Thomas (together, Jack in the Box). The Coalition sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandate based on allegations that Jack in the Box had failed to obtain, and the City had failed to require that Jack in the Box obtain, a discretionary neighborhood development permit (NDP) before demolishing the exterior walls of one of its restaurants as part of an extensive remodel project. The Coalition alleged these acts violated the San Diego Municipal Code (SDMC) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).

A jury found Brian Perez guilty of assault upon a custodial officer by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245.3; count 1) and mayhem (§ 203; count 2). As to count 1, the jury found true the allegation that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). The court found true allegations that Perez had two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d)) and sentenced him to prison for a total term of 25 years to life.

A jury convicted defendant Eduardo Gil (Eduardo) of 11 counts of residential burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a); counts 1-4 & 6-12). The same jury convicted defendant Fernando Gil (Fernando), Eduardo's brother (sometimes collectively, defendants), of 10 counts of residential burglary. (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a); counts 2-4, 6-12.) Eduardo admitted he was on felony probation when he committed the 11 offenses. (§ 1203, subd. (k).) The court sentenced Eduardo to 16, and Fernando to 12, years in prison.

Jaime Arteaga appeals the judgment sentencing him to prison after a jury found him guilty of robbery and found true weapon-use and gang enhancement allegations and he admitted allegations concerning prior convictions and prison terms. We vacate a portion of the sentence, remand the matter with directions for resentencing and modifications of the judgment, and otherwise affirm.

This case involves the construction of a medical office building by a private entity, respondent Medical Acquisition Company, Inc. (MAC), on land that was leased from a public agency, appellant Tri-City Healthcare District (Tri-City). A dispute arose between the parties concerning their respective obligations under their lease agreements, and they sued each other. While the lawsuits were pending, Tri-City began an eminent domain proceeding over MAC's leasehold interest, and Tri-City used its appraisal of the building to calculate the probable amount of just compensation owed to MAC. (See Calif. Const., Art. 1, § 19.) A jury ultimately rejected Tri-City's appraisal and found that MAC was entitled to a much higher amount of compensation for its taken property interest. Tri-City timely abandoned its eminent domain proceeding pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1268.510, but the trial court set aside the abandonment.

Appointed counsel for defendant John Alan Parvin asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) This appeal is the third filed by defendant in this case. We grant defendant’s request for judicial notice of our prior opinions. (People v. Parvin (Mar. 25, 2003, C040905 [nonpub. opn.] (Parvin I); People v. Parvin (Nov. 5, 2014, C076261 [nonpub. opn.] (Parvin II).) (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.)

A jury convicted Randell Bryant of three residential burglaries. The trial court sentenced defendant under the Three Strikes Law to 25 years to life in prison as to each count, plus 10 years, with each term to run consecutive to the others.
Defendant now contends the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence of a witness’s identification, (2) sustaining an objection to a portion of defense counsel’s closing argument, (3) denying his petition for release of juror information, and (4) believing that consecutive sentencing was mandatory. Finding no merit to defendant’s claims, we will affirm the judgment.

Following guilty pleas in seven different cases of theft and drug offenses, defendant Gregory Brian Jones appeals. In his initial brief defendant contended: (1) the trial court improperly stayed rather than struck on-bail enhancements (§ 12022.1) in two cases; (2) the trial court imposed concurrent sentences in two of his cases for possession and transportation of the same drugs, contrary to section 654; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike a prior conviction under the Three Strikes law “in furtherance of justice” (Pen. Code, § 1385; People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero)); and (4) two restitution fines were improperly imposed ex post facto.

Adrian E. Avina was charged with violating the conditions of his parole. Following a contested hearing, the trial court found true the allegation that he possessed a knife with a blade longer than two inches. The trial court revoked and restored parole with the same conditions, with the modification that Avina was sentenced to 170 days in county jail with total credits of 82 days. Avina filed a timely notice of appeal.

In the underlying action, the trial court denied appellant Blanca Estela Galan’s motion to vacate her convictions, which contended she did not understand the consequences of the guilty pleas she entered for her immigration status. We reject her challenges to that ruling and affirm.

In this juvenile dependency case, G.M. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA or Act) (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) to issue a final custody order as to his children. Both father and his wife A.L., who is the mother of his children (mother), are from Honduras. Father claims the juvenile court improperly exercised subject matter jurisdiction here because Honduras was the children’s “home state” for purposes of jurisdiction under the Act and, despite multiple good faith efforts below to reach a Honduran court, no Honduran court declined to exercise its jurisdiction over this matter. Father does not argue the juvenile court could never have jurisdiction here. Rather he claims the matter must be remanded so that the court can try again to contact a Honduran court to inquire whether that court wishes to exercise its jurisdiction over the case.

Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of second degree robbery after executing a Harvey waiver and agreeing to a 15-year sentence, “at 85 percent.” Although the trial court ordered victim restitution on all charged counts, including the six that were dismissed, it did not impose the mandatory local crime prevention programs fine (“crime prevention fine;” Pen. Code, § 1202.5).

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of mother, F.C., to two of her children, half-siblings T.C. and C.A., and freed them for adoption by their maternal grandfather. On appeal, mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding the children would not benefit from continuing a parent-child relationship with her (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26 subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) and asserts a legal guardianship should have been established. We affirm.

In the underlying action, the trial court ordered Isaac Kyle and his attorney, appellant George Halimi, to pay monetary discovery sanctions to respondents United States Liability Insurance Company (USLI) and Abram Interstate Insurance Services, Inc. (Abram). We reject appellant’s challenges to the sanctions and affirm.