CA Unpub Decisions

Louis DeLao appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated plea of no contest to first degree burglary with a prior strike conviction. We affirm.

Luis Hernandez Dedios appeals after a jury convicted him on three counts of inflicting corporal injury on a person with whom he had a dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), and one count each of false imprisonment by violence or menace (§ 236) and making criminal threats (§ 422). The trial court sentenced him to a total term of four years eight months in state prison. Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of making criminal threats, and that he was sentenced on the false imprisonment count in violation of section 654. We affirm.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a dependency petition alleging father G. T. (father) physically abused his son Alexander T. (Alexander). Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court dismissed the petition, concluding the Department had not met its burden of proving the alleged abuse occurred. We affirm.

Jeremy Devon Manning appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of attempted first degree burglary. We affirm.

The jury found defendant and appellant Leondre Banner guilty of conspiracy to commit murder (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1) [count 1]), willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a) [count 2]), and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246 [count 3]). As to counts 1–3, the jury found that the crimes were committed to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in commission of the offenses (§ 12022.53, subds. (c) & (e)(1)).

Boyan Sami Salha appeals from the trial court’s order denying his application under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Penal Code section 1170.18, for resentencing on his seven felony convictions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for an evidentiary hearing on Salha’s application for reduction of his felony conviction for theft of access card account information.

Plaintiffs Samuel and Shawn Sanders sued defendants Sung and Jung Chun, alleging that defendants did not disclose important facts about a real property that defendants sold to plaintiffs’ mother, which plaintiffs later inherited. According to plaintiffs’ allegations, defendants represented that the property was permitted to include four rental units, when in fact it was permitted to include only two rental units. After plaintiffs discovered the permitting problem, they sued defendants for fraud and misrepresentation.

Arthur R. Morales appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree murder. The information charged Morales with two counts of first degree murder, and specially alleged the multiple murders qualified as a special circumstance and Morales personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of the offenses. Morales pleaded not guilty to the underlying charges and not guilty by reason of insanity. Subsequently, as part of a negotiated plea, Morales conditionally pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree murder in exchange for dismissal of the first degree murder counts and the special allegations, conditioned on his being found sane in the sanity trial. Morales did not withdraw his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. After Morales waived his right to a jury trial, the trial court found Morales was sane at the time of commission of the offenses.

Plaintiff Edwin B. Romero appeals from an order granting defendant Raymond Honanian’s motion to set aside the default and default judgment entered against him. Romero contends the motion was erroneously granted because the default and default judgment were not void on their face and Honanian’s motion was otherwise untimely. Because Romero’s service of process by publication on Honanian was ineffective, the default and default judgment were void. We affirm.

Cross-defendants and appellants Scott Brandt (Brandt) and Westbridge Financial & Insurance Services, Inc. (Westbridge) (sometimes collectively referred to as Brandt), having prevailed on a cross-complaint, appeal a postjudgment order that denied their motion to recover more than $2.3 million in attorney fees from MetLife, Inc. (MetLife) and New England Life Insurance Company (NELICO).
Notwithstanding Brandt and Westbridge’s status as the prevailing parties on the cross-complaint, because they failed to demonstrate either a contractual or a statutory basis for an award of attorney fees, the order denying their motion for attorney fees is affirmed.

Following a bench trial, appellants Christopher G. Weston and his alter-ego company Western Law Connection Corp. (together Weston) were found liable for fraud against former clients after intentionally misrepresenting that he was competent to handle their probate and unlawful detainer cases. Judgment was entered against him in the amount of $808,620, based in part on an order imposing issue and evidentiary sanctions against him for purposefully withholding documents during discovery.
Weston appealed, but filed an opening brief and voluminous appellant’s appendix that violated numerous procedural rules. In particular, his 66-page opening brief only included a handful of record citations on a few pages, which has completely prevented us from assessing his numerous claims of error. He has therefore failed to carry his burden to show reversible error on appeal, and we affirm. We deny respondents’ pending motion to dismiss the appeal but grant their motion for sanctions.

Appellant Ivan Pulido-Zaragoza appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court revoked his probation. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.

Appellants McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group and St. Helena Residents for an Equitable General Plan opposed the development of an eight-unit multifamily residential building at 632 McCorkle Avenue. They filed a lawsuit challenging the actions of respondents the City of St. Helena (City) and the City Council of St. Helena (City Council) in approving a resolution granting demolition and design review permits to property owner and real party in interest Joe McGrath. When the trial court denied their petition for peremptory and administrative writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085, 1094.5), appellants filed this appeal.

John Russo Industrial Sheetmetal, Inc. (JRI) appeals from (1) the trial court’s order granting summary adjudication in favor of the City of Los Angeles Department of Airports (known as Los Angeles World Airports, or LAWA) on JRI’s claims for violation of its procedural and substantive due process rights, and (2) a postjudgment order awarding LAWA prevailing party costs. We affirm both orders.