CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Robert Lawrence Martus was charged by felony complaint with carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. (Pen. Code, § 21310, count 1.) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 1. A trial court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in state prison, in accordance with the agreement.
Defendant filed a handwritten notice of appeal. He also requested a request for certificate of probable cause, in which he asked for a sober living program in a different county or dismissal of count 1. He also alleged that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel, alleging that defense counsel never attempted to investigate his claim that the knife he possessed was a steak knife. The court granted the request. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Daniel Morris Gideon was charged by felony complaint with two counts of submitting forged documents in a court proceeding. (Pen. Code, § 132, counts 1 & 2). The complaint also alleged that defendant violated his probation by reason of the charged counts. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to both counts. A trial court placed him on probation for a period of three years, under specified terms.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, along with a request for certificate of probable cause, which the court denied. Subsequently, appellate counsel filed an amended notice of appeal on defendant’s behalf. We affirm the judgment.

Negar Rakhshandeh (wife) appeals from a court order compelling her to pay attorney fees totaling $5,000 to Esmaeil Asefirad (husband) and a second court order compelling her to pay $305 each month to husband as pendente lite spousal support. We affirm.

Defendant Billy Dan Teal was pulled over in a truck he was driving because he was weaving. There was marijuana and 2,000 rounds of live ammunition in the truck and defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests. A jury found defendant guilty of illegally possessing ammunition and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and the trial court found true the allegation that defendant was convicted of driving under the influence within the preceding 10 years.

A jury convicted defendant Arnulfo Chavarin on 36 counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 with substantial sexual conduct (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a), 1203.066, subd. (a)(8) -- counts 1 to 36), four counts of lewd acts on a child 14 or 15 years old (§ 288, subd. (c)(1) -- counts 37 to 40), four counts of sexual intercourse with a minor aged 16 or 17 (§ 261.5, subd. (c) -- counts 41 to 44), one count of kidnapping to commit rape (§ 209, subd. (b)(1) -- count 45), and one count of rape with an aggravated kidnapping enhancement (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 667.61, subd. (d)(2) -- count 46).
Defendant now contends (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for kidnapping to commit rape (count 45) and the aggravated kidnapping enhancement on the rape conviction (count 46), and (2) the trial court erred in imposing a concurrent life sentence on count 45 rather than staying sentence on that count. We will modify the judgment to stay execution of the 25-year-to-life se

Mother S.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights, though she makes no legal challenge to that order. Instead, mother challenges the court’s order at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21 status review hearing, terminating her reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing, reasoning that she did not receive adequate notice of the hearing. We disagree and affirm.

The juvenile court found jurisdiction over mother’s child, sustaining one count under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, which alleged mother’s use of marijuana placed the child (born February 2016) at risk of harm. Mother argues there is no nexus between her marijuana use and any past physical harm to the child or present risk of harm. She also asserts there was insufficient evidence to establish substance abuse. We agree and reverse the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding.

Braiden John Rollon pled no contest to two counts of lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to 10 years in prison, pursuant to a plea agreement. On appeal from the judgment, Rollon’s appellate counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) summarizing the facts in this case and the procedural history, but raising no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. Rollon purports to challenge only his sentence, and not the validity of his plea. We conclude that by challenging his negotiated sentence Rollon effectively challenges the validity of his plea. Because Rollon did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5), we dismiss the appeal.

Thomas A. Zoline, a beneficiary of a trust, appeals from the trial court’s order interpreting the trust agreement. For many years after the trustors’ deaths, the trustee did not distribute most of the real properties held as trust assets. Another beneficiary, Pamela Lifton-Zoline, petitioned for an order construing the trust agreement and instructing the trustee how to distribute the assets pursuant to Probate Code section 17200, subdivisions (b)(1) and (6).
Thomas and Pamela, along with the third beneficiary Patricia Zoline, agreed that the real properties should be distributed non-pro rata (distributing specific properties to specific beneficiaries), rather than distributed pro rata (distributing undivided interests in the properties or selling the properties and distributing the proceeds). But they disagreed about how to value the properties for distribution. Pamela asserted the trust agreement required using the asset values on the date of distribution, a contempora

Luis C. Hernandez appeals from a judgment convicting him of carjacking and sentencing him to 33 years in prison. He contends his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded to allow the trial court to decide whether to strike a 10-year firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Julio Balvaneda of assault with a deadly weapon―a truck―on victim Rayjon Marqui Moore. Balvaneda’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court denied him his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf. We find no error and affirm.

Michael Angelo Daniel appeals from a judgment of conviction for murder and attempted murder, contending insufficient evidence supports the convictions, the trial court improperly admitted gang evidence, and the prosecutor committed misconduct. We disagree with each contention, and therefore affirm the judgment.
Daniel also contends the matter should be remanded for resentencing in light of a change in the law. We agree, and will remand the matter.

Plaintiff Layne Leslie Britton filed suit against defendants Conrad Riggs and Cloudbreak Entertainment, Inc. for various claims arising out of an alleged breach of contract, seeking more than $14 million in damages. Riggs and Cloudbreak cross-complained against Britton for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. After trial on Britton’s claims for breach of contract and money had and received, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of Britton on both claims, and awarded him a total of $489,850 in damages. The trial court thereafter granted in part, and denied in part, a motion for a new trial filed by Britton. The parties appeal from various orders entered by the trial court. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court’s order on the motion for a new trial, and dismiss the parties’ respective appeals from the remaining challenged orders.

Defendant and appellant Jimmie Laster (defendant) appealed the sentence he received for his robbery conviction. In an opinion issued in 2016, we held resentencing was required because the trial court violated defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by relying on a preliminary hearing transcript to conclude one of his prior convictions qualified as a predicate felony under the Three Strikes law. Defendant petitioned for review and our Supreme Court granted and held the petition pending its decision in People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120 (Gallardo). Gallardo having since been decided, the Supreme Court returned the case to us with instructions to vacate our prior opinion and reconsider the matter in light of that decision. Complying with that direction, we issue this opinion and conclude that although our prior resolution of the Sixth Amendment issue is consistent with Gallardo, aspects of our prior disposition require modification to hew more closely to the Gallardo