CA Unpub Decisions

Clayton Gonzales was convicted by a jury of three counts of residential burglary, one count of commercial burglary, and three counts of grand theft. At trial, the court allowed the prosecution to admit evidence that appellant committed six uncharged crimes to prove he acted with the intent to commit theft in the charged offenses and to prove whether he reasonably and in good faith believed the victims consented to the taking of their property. The court also allowed the admission of one uncharged crime to establish appellant’s identity as the perpetrator of certain of the charged offenses. The trial court imposed a four-year midterm sentence on count one (residential burglary) and imposed concurrent sentences on the other six counts.

In their third appeal in this longstanding dispute over a family trust, Femke F. Knudson and Ingrid J. Huntley (collectively, plaintiffs) claim the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Ralda A. Ryer attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420. We affirm the order. We also impose monetary sanctions on plaintiffs and their attorney for this frivolous appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276.)

Appellant Yvette Stefens Nelson (wife) appeals from an order denying her motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Wife contends the court erroneously denied her motion, which sought relief from a previous order denying a claim of exemption. Respondent Matthew Gray Nelson (husband) contends the court correctly denied wife’s motion for relief after concluding that relief was not warranted based upon wife’s claim of mistake. We affirm because wife has failed to meet her burden on appeal to show how the court’s decision to deny the motion for relief was an abuse of discretion.

Defendant and appellant Perrell C. Patton appeals from two postjudgment orders: the April 18, 2017 denial of his amended petition to recall sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126, and the July 21, 2017 denial of his second petition to recall sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18.
We affirm both orders.

The jury found defendant and appellant Michael Parks guilty of murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) It found true firearm use allegations under sections 12022.5, subdivision (a), and 12022.53, subdivisions (b)–(d). It also found true the allegation that Parks used a deadly weapon (sharp object) in commission of the murder. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).)

Plaintiff In Hee Song appeals from an order denying her motion to vacate an arbitrator’s dismissal of the arbitration for failure to prosecute with due diligence. While an order denying a motion to vacate an arbitrator’s award is not appealable, we conclude that immediate review of the denial of her motion is appropriate and treat her appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. We deny the petition.

Brian McCabe appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted in count 1 of continuous sexual abuse of a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)) and in count 2 of committing a lewd act upon a 14 or 15 year old child (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)). In bifurcated proceedings, the jury found true the allegation that appellant had suffered a prior conviction for first degree burglary. The trial court denied appellant’s new trial and Romero motions, and sentenced appellant to a total term of 30 years 4 months in state prison.

Barbara Donahue (Donahue) appeals from an order dismissing her action to enforce an out-of-state judgment dissolving her marriage to Charles Boyce (Boyce). The trial court dismissed the action because the parties’ out-of-state judgment had not been properly registered with the court.
On appeal, Donahue contends that the trial court erred because the out-of-state judgment had in fact been properly registered when she first filed suit in June 2000. On the record before us, it appears that Donahue did in fact take the necessary initial steps in June 2000 to register the out-of-state judgment.

K.S. is the minor son of respondent T.S. (mother). Appellant M.B. is K.S.’s grandmother and was, for approximately seven years, his legal guardian (grandmother). On appeal, grandmother seeks reversal of the trial court’s January 2017 order terminating her guardianship of K.S. Grandmother argues it is in K.S.’s best interests to keep the guardianship in place, and that termination of the guardianship is detrimental to him. Based on the record before us, however, which among other things does not include the reporter’s transcript of the court trial below, we find no error and affirm.

A jury convicted Joel Ignacio Ambriz (Ambriz) and Albert Sandoval (Sandoval) of the murders of Jose Rodriguez and Cesar Perea, as well as the attempted premeditated murders of Jhony Rodas and Ricardo Garcia. The jury also found that the alleged firearm and gang allegations were true. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Defendants Luis Orozco, Shawn Verrette, and Frank Ervin were convicted in a joint trial of the special circumstance murder and robbery of Franklin R. (Frank). Defendants challenge the admission at trial of gang evidence, wiretapped communications discussing uncharged crimes, and testimony regarding domestic violence. They contend the challenged evidence was irrelevant to the underlying charges against them and unduly prejudicial. We remand the matter for the trial court to address several sentencing issues, but otherwise affirm the judgments.

Appellant Dephonso Duplessis (appellant) contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss a prior strike conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). We affirm.

About four years after N.W. (Minor) was first detained from his mother under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, he was placed with his maternal grandmother, Rebecca. A few months later, the court sustained a petition filed by the Mendocino County Department of Social Services (Department) under section 387 and removed Minor from Rebecca’s care. Although Rebecca and counsel for the Department had argued on more than one occasion to appoint counsel to represent Rebecca in connection with the section 387 petition, the court denied the requests. Some months after that, Rebecca, acting in pro per, filed a section 388 petition asking the court to return Minor to her care. The petition was summarily denied on the grounds that it did not state new evidence or a change of circumstances, and Rebecca appeals.

Dartmond Cherk and the Cherk Family Trust (the Cherks) appeal from the denial of their petition for writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The Cherks challenge the validity of a $39,960 “in-lieu” fee imposed by the County of Marin (County) under its inclusionary housing program as a condition for subdividing their property. The Cherks contend that the fee is invalid under both the Mitigation Fee Act and the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine,” established by the United States Supreme Court in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n (1987) 483 U.S. 825 (Nollan) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374 (Dolan). We disagree. The fee falls outside the scope of the Act’s scrutiny of certain “exactions” because it serves broader purposes than simply mitigating the impact of the Cherks’ subdivision.