CA Unpub Decisions

At the conclusion of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing (.26 hearing), the juvenile court denied A.A.’s (mother) section 388 petitions and terminated her parental rights. We affirm.

Michael Magdowski (husband) appeals from an order dividing the marital estate arising out of his marriage to Xiao Hua Gao. On appeal, husband claims the trial court erred in ordering him to sell real property in China, property that the court determined was community property, and deposit the proceeds from that sale into a trust account to be released to the parties by stipulation or further order of the court. We affirm the court’s order.

Defendant Darnell Edwin Erby appeals a judgment entered following a bifurcated jury trial finding him guilty of identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)—count one); forgery (§§ 470, subd. (d), 473, subd. (a)—count two); and felony receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)—count three). The trial court dismissed the unsubstantiated section 12022.1 enhancements and found true the special allegations that the three counts were committed after receiving one strike (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and that defendant had four prior prison commitments (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court reduced count three to a misdemeanor and sentenced defendant to 180 days in jail to be served concurrently with his aggregate prison term of nine years and four months. Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to stay his sentence on count three pursuant to section 654.
We disagree.

In August of 2018, this court affirmed the conviction of defendant Dennis Exzaver Austin, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike any of defendant’s prior strikes.
Two months later, our Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review and directed this court to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of the newly enacted Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2017 Reg. Sess.; Stats. 2018, ch. 1013 (Senate Bill 1393)). Senate Bill 1393 affords trial courts discretion to dismiss or strike prior serious felony enhancements. We will remand to allow the trial court to consider exercising this newly afforded discretion.

A jury found defendant Brennan Jones guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and found true allegations that he had sustained a serious felony conviction that qualified as both a strike (§§ 667, subd. (d); 1170.12, subd. (b)) and a five-year enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 11 years in prison, consisting of the mid-term of three years doubled due to the strike prior plus five years for the prior serious felony enhancement.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in (1) denying him a continuance so he could make a prima facie case that the jury panel did not represent a fair cross-section of the community; (2) denying him a jury trial on identity for the strike prior; (3) taking judicial notice of court records to determine identity; and (4) responding to a jury question without providing the response to the defense. He also raises three sentencing issues, arguing the trial court erred in denying him a continuance,

A jury found defendant Kouei Saetern guilty of three counts of murder with special circumstances. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of an uncharged attempted murder; (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; (3) defendant was improperly convicted of more than one multiple-murder special circumstance; (4) the restitution award is not based on substantial evidence; (5) the restitution fine should be reduced to $200; (6) defendant’s parole revocation fine should be stricken; and (7) the matter should be remanded to allow the trial court to consider striking the firearm enhancement pursuant to the newly enacted Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.; hereafter Senate Bill 620). We will remand the matter for a new hearing on victim restitution and to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion under Senate Bill 620; we will direct t

Real Party in Interest Placer County Department of Public Works (DPW) demoted plaintiff John Lindgren after he made threats of violence against a coworker. Defendant Placer County Civil Service Commission (the Board) sustained the demotion.
Lindgren sought a writ of administrative mandate in the superior court directing the Board to overturn its decision. Upon its belated inclusion in the writ proceeding after the statute of limitations had expired for challenging the Board’s ruling, DPW twice demurred on the ground that it had been an indispensable party that could not be joined any longer, and renewed this issue in its opposition to the writ. The trial court did not rule on this threshold issue in denying the writ of mandate on substantive grounds.
Lindgren appealed in March 2016; his briefing was completed in October 2016, and the panel as presently constituted was assigned the matter in September 2018. His focus on appeal is on the substance of the administrative ruling,

Defendant and appellant William Morris Lyons entered pleas of no contest to two counts of felony child abuse, and dissuading a witness by force or threat. The trial court sentenced him to 10 years 8 months in the state prison, but suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on probation. Lyons admitted to being in violation of probation and the court executed the sentence. He appeals the order. We affirm.

Pacific Western Bank (the Bank) filed two lawsuits. In one action, the Bank sought repayment of a loan made to defendant Far Out Productions, Inc. (FOP) and guaranteed by defendant Gerald Goldstein (B278076). In the second action, the Bank sought to recover a debt owed by defendant Audio Visual Entertainment, Inc. (AVE), secured by a deed of trust executed by Goldstein (B278122). The bank moved for summary judgment in both lawsuits. Defendants premised their nearly identical oppositions on over 75 evidentiary objections to the admissibility of the Bank’s evidence of (1) the loans and of (2) the Bank’s acquisition of the loan obligations. After ruling on the parties’ evidentiary objections, the trial court granted the motions and entered judgment in the Bank’s favor in both lawsuits. Defendants separately appealed from each judgment. Thereafter, the trial court awarded attorney fees to the Bank in both cases.

On August 7, 2013, Jeong Sook Dokko filed a complaint alleging that Tae S. Kim, an owner of codefendant Westcoast Foods, Inc., failed to pay her overtime and to provide meal and rest breaks, itemized statements on wages paid in cash, and wages upon termination, in violation of Labor Code sections 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510. The complaint also alleged that Kim violated the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)
On March 15, 2017, after a two-day bench trial at which Dokko and Kim were the only witnesses who testified, the Honorable Dennis Hayashi entered judgment in favor of Dokko, directing that she recover restitution in the amount of $141,712.50 from Kim, who was jointly liable with codefendants Westcoast Foods, Inc. and Tae Chul Kim. After finding the testimony of Dokko “credible” and that of Kim “not credible,” the court concluded that Kim violated the wage and hour provisions of the Labor Code cited above, and that such violations also c

This is an appeal from judgment after a jury convicted defendant Sherri Gordon of misdemeanor assault, the lesser included offense of count 1, infliction of corporal injury on a child, and acquitted her of count 2, child abuse likely to cause great bodily injury. On appeal, defendant contends that reversal is required because the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on which of several acts alleged by the prosecution constituted the misdemeanor assault. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Todd Hosein (Hosein) of a misdemeanor count of battery on a person with whom he had a dating relationship, pursuant to Penal Code section 243, subdivision (e)(1), along with other charges. Hosein appeals that conviction, arguing there is insufficient evidence that he and the victim had a “dating relationship.” A review of the whole record discloses substantial evidence supporting the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find Hosein guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment.

Mother appeals from an order at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing (.26 hearing) terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. She contends the court erred in three ways.
First, she contends she had stipulated to a dispositional order denying her reunification services on the condition that she be granted a drug patch. The drug patch was ordered, but the referral form did not check a particular box indicating it was funded. Nonetheless, the patch was authorized, and mother never attempted to have it applied. We conclude she forfeited her right to a drug patch. Even assuming the patch was inadvertently unfunded, funding was clearly authorized, and mother could have resolved that problem early in the case.

A jury found Jessee Roach guilty of first-degree burglary, domestic battery with injury with prior conviction for violence, and two violations of a protective order. Roach appeals following the imposition of a seven year, four month sentence. Roach contends the court’s refusal to sever the burglary and domestic battery charges for trial constituted an abuse of discretion. He also argues the trial court erred by admitting, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1109, propensity evidence of two prior domestic violence incidents. We find no error and affirm the judgment.