CA Unpub Decisions

The California Department of Justice (DOJ) determined certain computer-based games operated by appellant LM Connexions, Inc. (LMC) were illegal forms of gambling. The DOJ seized LMC’s equipment, resulting in closure of LMC’s business. LMC sued the DOJ, Attorney General, and Chief of the Bureau of Gambling Control (Defendants), alleging civil rights violations and seeking return of its equipment. The complaint sought a declaration the games were legal and an injunction to prevent Defendants’ enforcement of gambling laws against LMC.

Joseph Miguel has filed consolidated appeals from two orders concerning his duty to pay child support to his ex-wife Katie Yue. One appeal challenges a 2016 order that denied Miguel’s motion to reduce the amount of support based on a reduction in his income and increase in Yue’s income. The second appeal challenges two 2017 orders, one approving a stipulated agreement to adjust the support level and the other quashing a subpoena for Yue’s financial records. We conclude that the 2016 order, although applying to only a limited time period, must be reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to address Miguel’s argument that his support for the period in question should be reduced because Yue’s income had increased. We find no error in the 2017 orders.

Sabeer Bhatia (Husband) and Tania Bhatia (Wife) separated after about four years of marriage. At the outset of this dissolution proceeding, they stipulated Husband would pay Wife temporary combined spousal and child support of $102,090 per month. After a bifurcated trial on the support issues almost two years later, the family court found Husband had overpaid and ordered that he be reimbursed or credited for the excess temporary spousal support, but not for the excess child support. Wife appeals, contending the reimbursement/credit order, and certain factual findings and evidentiary rulings made by the family court, were in error. Husband cross-appeals, asserting the court erred in not ordering reimbursement or credit for the temporary child support overpayment. We affirm.

Appellant Eric William Warner (Warner) appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to recall his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, added by Proposition 36 (the Reform Act) . (See Pen. Code § 1170.126.) Specifically, Warner asserts that he is eligible to be resentenced on his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). In addition, Warner claims—relying on People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635 (Vargas)—that he has been subjected to an unauthorized sentence under the Three Strikes law, because his two prior convictions should have been treated as one strike rather than two. The trial court concluded that Warner was ineligible for resentencing on the firearm conviction and that Vargas was inapplicable on these facts. We agree and therefore affirm.

This juvenile dependency case originated in the family court as the result of a custody dispute. A.C. (Father) and M.C. (Mother) separated in 2007 when L. was three years old and thereafter appeared in the family court for various hearings related to custody and visitation of L. On August 2, 2016 at a hearing on further custody and visitation orders, the family court ordered Family Court Services to assess whether one or both parents posed a danger to the child. Based on the resulting recommendations, the family court initiated orders that resulted in the child’s placement in protective custody. Thereafter the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (department), filed a dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 on August 5, 2016. The juvenile court took jurisdiction of L., and removed her from the custody of her parents.

Alma G. appeals from an order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, terminating her parental rights to her children Juan C. and Mariela Ruby C. This is Alma’s second trip to our court. She previously filed a petition for writ of mandate after her reunification services were terminated. We dismissed the petition because the notice of intention to file a writ had been filed untimely. In this appeal, Alma does not contend that Juan and Ruby were not adoptable or that the parental benefit exception to termination applies. Instead, she argues that the order should be reversed because the juvenile court did not ask her why she wanted to substitute private counsel for her court-appointed attorney on the day of the section 366.26 hearing and because the court would not grant an 18-day continuance so that her new counsel could represent her.

Appellant Jesus Santiago Calderon is facing the prospect of deportation as a result of a guilty plea conviction he suffered in 2014. Seeking to vacate the conviction, he contends his guilty plea was involuntarily rendered because he was unaware it could have adverse immigration consequences for him. However, the record shows appellant was repeatedly advised of this fact, and he has failed to prove his plea was involuntary. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate.

Appellant J.W. appeals an order finding he lacks the capacity to refuse treatment and compelling him to undergo the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication by respondent, State Department of State Hospitals, over the course of a year. His appeal raises questions about the authority of the state to pursue such orders under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq., when the individual in question has been held upon probable cause under the SVPA but has not been committed following a trial. Respondent contends such actions are authorized under the SVPA and its own regulations but, regardless, appellant’s contentions are barred by several procedural flaws. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude the SVPA provides the court with discretionary authority to involuntarily medicate an incompetent person placed with the State Hospital pre-commitment. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order.

K.M. appeals from the juvenile court’s order made at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e) six-month review hearing. K.M. is the father of mother’s youngest child, A.M. At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children returned to mother’s care, after it found she made substantial progress in her case plan. Reunification services were terminated for K.M., as he failed to participate in services. K.M. appeals only the juvenile court’s visitation order, which read “visitation between [K.M.] and [A.M.] shall be supervised in accordance with the case plan.” The Kings County Human Services Agency (Agency) argues, inter alia, that K.M. forfeited his challenge to the visitation order by failing to object to it in the juvenile court.

Surety The North River Insurance Company (North River) and its bail agent, real party in interest Bad Boys Bail Bonds (Bad Boys) (collectively appellants), appeal from the trial court’s conditional bond exoneration order of November 16, 2016. After fleeing the state, the criminal defendant was found and extradited from the State of Washington to Stanislaus County (County), and the court ordered appellants’ $75,000 bail bond exonerated under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (c)(1). Upon request of County, the court conditioned the exoneration of the bond on the payment of expenses in the amount of $5,323.61 for the costs of extradition.

Appellants appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The record is insufficient to establish any error in the judgment. We decline to grant appellants’ motion to augment the record on appeal and their motion for judicial notice of additional documents, both of which were filed with or after appellants’ reply brief and failed to offer any reason for the delay. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted appellant Michael Murry Johnson of first degree murder for the shooting death of Leonard Greenberry (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1). Appellant was also convicted of attempting to murder Earl Perry stemming from the same incident. In both crimes, the jury found true firearm enhancements. The trial court found true that appellant had suffered a prior strike conviction. Appellant received a prison sentence of 114 years to life.
Appellant raises four different issues on appeal. He alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial; (3) the trial court twice erred in permitting the admission of certain testimony; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during closing arguments.

Plaintiff and appellant Mike Borja (Borja) sued defendants and respondents City of Adelanto (the City), Richard Kerr (Kerr), Jermaine Wright (Wright), and John Woodard, Jr. (Woodard). Borja brought (1) a hostile work environment cause of action; (2) wrongful termination causes of action based upon age discrimination, being a whistleblower, and retaliation; and (3) three causes of action alleging violations of due process under the California Constitution. The City, Kerr, Wright, and Woodard (collectively, defendants) filed an anti-SLAPP motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; hereinafter, § 425.16.) The trial court granted the motion. Borja contends the trial court erred by granting the anti-SLAPP motion. We reverse the judgment.

Defendant Tor Cleveland, his girlfriend, and a female acquaintance were "party[ing]" with Alfred S. in Alfred's home. A dispute arose during which Cleveland beat Alfred while the girlfriend stabbed him repeatedly with a pocketknife. Afterwards, the three visitors fled in Alfred's car. A jury found Cleveland guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (on the theory he aided and abetted his girlfriend's stabbing of Alfred) and carjacking. The jury also found true the allegation that Cleveland personally inflicted great bodily injury on Alfred in connection with the assault. Cleveland challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdicts and true finding. We affirm.