CA Unpub Decisions

Darwin Anthony Spears appeals a January 5, 2018 postjudgment order revoking probation in case nos. BA444830 and BA438811 and ordering appellant to serve the remainder of his five-year county jail split sentences imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(1). All fines, fees, and costs previously ordered were stayed based on the finding that appellant does not have the ability to pay due to the length of time he will spend in custody.

Plaintiff North America Seafood (Plaintiff) challenges the denial of its request for entry of default judgment against numerous defendants. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in failing to consider evidence showing the defendants caused it to suffer $3.3 million in damages. We affirm.

Evel Ernesto Flores appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one felony count of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152. Appellant admitted two prior conviction allegations. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 1203, subd. (e)(4).) The trial court sentenced appellant pursuant to section 23550.5 to a total term of three years imprisonment in county jail. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h).)
Appellant contends the trial court erred and violated his due process rights in giving inaccurate and incomplete responses to the jury’s inquiries which diluted the prosecution’s burden of proof. He further argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him under section 23550.5 because his prior conviction was not punished as a felony and was therefore not a qualifying conviction. We disagree and affirm.

Plaintiff Amir Mostafavi appeals from an order granting in part a special motion to strike his complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16). He also challenges the court’s subsequent award of attorney fees to defendants Eric Kingsley and Kingsley & Kingsley, APC (together, Defendants). Mostafavi filed the notice of appeal more than two years after the court entered its order on the anti-SLAPP motion, which was untimely. He also failed to identify the attorney fees order in the notice of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Tyrone Murphy appeals after a jury convicted him of arson of another person’s property (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that appellant had prior strike and serious felony convictions (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (b) - (i), 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d)) and a prior conviction for arson (§ 451.1, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to 13 years in state prison, consisting of the midterm of two years doubled for the strike prior, plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction, plus four years for the prior arson conviction. Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion. In a supplemental brief, he contends he is entitled to a remand for the court to exercise its discretion whether to dismiss his prior serious felony enhancement allegation pursuant to amendments to section 667 that go into effect on January 1, 2019. The second contention has merit and we shall remand for

The District Attorney charged defendant and appellant Jose Barraza (defendant) with one count of sale/offer to sell/transportation of a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379(a). The information further alleged defendant had suffered one prior felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667(b)-(j) and 1170.12 (the Three Strikes law). The charges were predicated on evidence defendant was involved in the sale of crystal methamphetamine to an undercover Los Angeles Police Department officer. Specifically, the officer asked defendant and a co-defendant where she could buy crystal methamphetamine, the co-defendant said he had some on his person, defendant asked for and obtained the money, and the co-defendant provided the officer with the methamphetamine.

Plaintiff and appellant JMS Air Conditioning and Appliance, Inc. (JMS) appeals from the superior court’s June 5, 2017 denial of JMS’s petition for writ of administrative mandate. That petition asked the superior court to set aside an administrative decision by defendant and respondent Santa Monica Community College District (the District) that allowed a contractor with the District, real party in interest and respondent Bernards Bros., Inc., to substitute another subcontractor in the place of JMS on a construction project for the District. The court denied JMS’s petition, and for the reasons discussed below, we affirm the court’s denial.

Defendant and appellant Roldolfo Lopez appeals from his conviction by jury of two counts of first degree murder, with a multiple-murder special-circumstance finding. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole. He contends a new trial is warranted because the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statement to police, and in responding to questions from the jury during deliberations.
We affirm.

T.M., a minor, appeals the juvenile court’s order sustaining a wardship petition on allegations that appellant committed two attempted murders (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664; counts 3 & 5), an assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), two second degree robberies (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); counts 7 & 8), and an attempted second degree robbery (§§ 213, subd. (b), 664; count 9). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The court also found true allegations that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injuries in committing the attempted murders and the assault (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Appellant was declared a ward and committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) for a 20-year maximum period of confinement. Appellant contends (1) he was subjected to an unduly suggestive identification procedure; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the finding he committed two attempted murders; (3) the court erred in ordering a DJF commitment; and (4) the min

A jury convicted appellant Allan Jay Milton (defendant) of first degree murder for the death of Phillip Melendez and found defendant used a deadly and dangerous weapon (a knife). The trial court sentenced defendant to 26 years to life in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction.
Defendant does not dispute that he killed Melendez. Rather, on appeal, defendant argues that, due to alleged trial court error, the jury was precluded from considering defendant’s theories of self-defense and the jury heard irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of an unrelated prior incident, he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors, and substantial evidence does not support his conviction for first degree murder. As explained below, we disagree with each of defendant’s arguments and affirm.

Plaintiff and respondent Catrina A. Hanna (Hanna) sued her former employer, defendant and appellant City of Long Beach (City), claiming the City failed to investigate complaints that she had been sexually harassed while working at one of the City’s libraries. Less than two weeks before trial was scheduled to begin, the City sought to disqualify Hanna’s attorney because he had verified the complaint Hanna filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), a document that had been in the City’s possession for nearly two years by that time, and the City intended to call him as a witness to testify about statements included in that document. The City also sought to disqualify Hanna’s attorney because he had contacted employees whom the City claimed were represented by the Long Beach City Attorney’s Office for purposes of Hanna’s lawsuit. The court denied the City’s requests to disqualify Hanna’s attorney and the case went to trial. Ultimately, the jury found i

A jury convicted defendant Scedrick Tippins of two felonies and a misdemeanor based on an October 2016 incident of drunk driving. In a separate case, he pleaded no contest to the same three crimes based on a January 2017 incident of drunk driving. He was sentenced to ten years and four months in prison.
On appeal, Tippins contends only that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of two preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) tests—which demonstrate a person’s “approximate blood alcohol content based upon [his or her] breath”—administered during the October 2016 incident. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that Tippins voluntarily consented to take the tests, and we therefore affirm his convictions in both cases. We remand, however, for the trial court to address minor sentencing issues and errors in the abstracts of judgment.

T.A., the mother of then 17-year-old K.N. and 13-year-old L.N., appeals from jurisdictional findings and a dispositional order issued after the juvenile court sustained a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c). Mother challenges only the subdivision (c) allegation and finding, contending the court erred in amending the petition to add the allegation and, even if it did not, the finding is not supported by the evidence. Father urges that Mother’s appeal should be dismissed, given the unchallenged subdivision (b) allegation. We agree and dismiss Mother’s appeal.

Defendant Alexander Parlato appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)), forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A)), and corporal injury on a girlfriend (§ 273.5, subd. (a)); admitted he had personally inflicted great bodily injury upon his victim under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)); and admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c), 667, subds. (d) & (e).) Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to 22 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his request to strike the factual recitation in the probation report and replace it with the preliminary hearing transcript. He further contends the court erred by denying his request to strike the reference to his Static-99 test because the probation report failed to include a “Facts of Offense Sheet”