CA Unpub Decisions

The City and County of San Francisco sued appellant landlords for illegally harassing their tenants and violating state and local building and housing laws. During discovery, the landlords were extremely uncooperative, and they violated at least 10 court orders. The trial court declined to enter default against the landlords as a sanction, but it imposed issue and evidentiary sanctions. After a nearly month-long trial, the court ruled against the landlords, awarded the City substantial penalties, and required the landlords to hire an independent entity to manage the properties for five years. The landlords challenge these rulings. We affirm.

Defendant William Lawson was convicted of sexually molesting two of his daughter’s friends: 26 counts of oral copulation with a child 10 or under and forcible lewd acts on Jane Doe 1 and three counts of lewd acts on Jane Doe 3. With “one-strike” allegations of kidnapping, kidnapping with substantial movement, and “multiple victims,” Lawson was sentenced to prison for 405 years to life.

Appellant Daniel S. Farnum appeals from an order denying his petition for a writ of mandate to compel respondent Iris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Iris) to allow him to inspect and copy its corporate records. Though Iris had provided Farnum with some audited financial statements, we conclude that Farnum was entitled to inspect and copy additional financial and accounting records and reverse.

A jury convicted defendant Marvalyon Fella Gibson of felony false imprisonment, misdemeanor vandalism, and burglary. The trial court found true allegations that defendant had suffered eight prior strikes, four prison priors, and three prior serious felony convictions. Pursuant to the Three Strikes law, the trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 41 years to life. On appeal, defendant claims instructional error and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his false imprisonment conviction.

Defendant Joseph Angel appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(1) - count 1), harming a peace officer’s dog (§ 600 - count 3), and resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1) - count 4). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant had personally used a deadly weapon (§§ 667, 1192.7). In a separate proceeding, the trial court found true the allegation that defendant committed the offenses while on bail or released on his own recognizance (§ 12022.1). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of three years in prison.

Moises Salcido appeals the judgment entered in four cases sentenced together by the trial court. Salcido does not challenge his convictions but instead asserts that the trial court erred in its oral pronouncement of the sentence in one of the cases. Both Salcido and the Attorney General request corrections to the abstracts of judgment. We find no error in the sentence pronounced by the trial court and agree that the abstracts of judgment should be corrected.

Defendant Chad Jarrett Alexander pleaded no contest to felony concealing or withholding stolen property among other counts. The offense involved two pieces of stolen mail. Defendant was sentenced to county jail.
After defendant completed his sentence, he filed a petition with the trial court pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f), which was enacted as part of Proposition 47, to have his felony conviction redesignated as a misdemeanor. Defendant filed several documents in support of the petition, including a declaration from counsel. Counsel stated on information and belief that mail has only nominal value, and that the mail at issue did not exceed $950 in value. The trial court denied the petition, finding that defendant failed to provide evidence of the value of the stolen mail.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying the petition because he established that the value of the mail was less than $950.

Denny Alexander and Jennifer Lefton dated for several years but broke up amidst allegations that Denny cheated on Jennifer. The acrimonious breakup culminated in both parties filing applications for domestic violence restraining orders (DVRO) against the other based on harassing conduct (there were no physical altercations, so far as the record reveals). When the parties appeared in court, the judge encouraged them to settle, which they did, agreeing to dismiss their dueling applications with prejudice. The ensuing minute order erroneously entered dismissals without prejudice.

Alex Esmail appeals from an order setting aside a permanent restraining order he obtained against Sawsan Abualrob. The trial court set aside the order after concluding Abualrob was not served with either the notice of the hearing at which it was imposed, or Esmail’s application for the restraining order.
Esmail contends the court erred because it is undisputed Abualrob was served with the temporary restraining order issued against her, which included the date of the hearing at which the permanent order was to be issued. He consequently contends she had sufficient notice of that hearing date.

Janos Andrassy appeals from an order denying his order to show cause to reduce his child support obligation. Edina Demko contends the trial court correctly determined Andrassy failed to show a change in circumstances. Finding no error, we affirm the order.

Upset with his ex-girlfriend, defendant Thomas Michael Wilhelm took a handgun from a neighbor’s house and shot her six times. His only argument on appeal from his murder conviction is that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of his own statements that he feared the victim. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to exclude these statements under the Evidence Code, and had we found error, we would find no prejudice requiring reversal.
In a supplemental brief, Wilhelm argued that he must be resentenced due to a change in law concerning a firearm enhancement attached to the murder count. The Attorney General concedes the point, and we agree. We therefore reverse for resentencing only and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Appellant Anthony Nunez was convicted of making a criminal threat against Jane Adamo. On appeal, he contends: 1) There is insufficient evidence Adamo suffered sustained fear as a result of his threats; 2) the jury instruction on voluntary intoxication was too narrow; 3) defense counsel was ineffective for conceding appellant’s guilt in closing argument; 4) he was not afforded a speedy trial; 5) the trial court mishandled his numerous requests for a new attorney; and 6) cumulative error compels reversal. Finding appellant’s claims unmeritorious, we affirm the judgment.

Petitioner Angela A. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)(1) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for December 20, 2018, as to her 11-month-old daughter, E.A. Mother requests an order granting her additional time to reunify but fails to identify any grounds for juvenile court error. Consequently, we conclude her petition fails to comport with the content requirements of rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition.

Appellant Maria N. (mother), is the mother of five children. The two youngest girls alleged that mother’s boyfriend, Rafael G., touched them in an inappropriate, sexual manner. The juvenile court sustained Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petitions filed on behalf of the two girls. Mother contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. Mother also contends the juvenile court erred in removing the girls from her custody at disposition. We affirm.