CA Unpub Decisions

Gary Salzman appeals from a judgment entered in favor of his former attorney, Gary Moll, in this action for breach of fiduciary duty and other causes of action. After entering default against Moll and affording Salzman an opportunity to present evidence supporting his request for judgment, the trial court found Salzman was not entitled to recover damages against Moll. Finding no error, we affirm.

The adult children of defendant Jeffrey Foreman’s girlfriend arrived at defendant’s home unannounced in the middle of the night to retrieve belongings their mother left at his house. They verbally and physically sparred with defendant, who ultimately shot one of them in the thigh. During defendant’s ensuing trial for assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon, both children alluded to prior domestic violence between defendant and their mother. Defense counsel promptly objected to their testimony as contrary to a pretrial agreement and twice moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motions for mistrial, and defense counsel declined a curative instruction. The jury found defendant guilty of both offenses.
Defendant now contends the trial court erred in denying the motions for mistrial. He argues that the witnesses’ statements not only unduly prejudiced him but also constituted testimonial hearsay that violated his right to confrontation. We dis

Appellant Craig Pearce appeals from an order in a dissolution of marriage proceeding granting respondent Emilia Kipershmit attorney fees as sanctions and based on need. On appeal, Pearce contends the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Kipershmit $50,000 in attorney fees for sanctions under Family Code section 271, and $15,000 pursuant to section 2030 for “needs based” attorney fees. We affirm the order.

A jury convicted defendants Boston Blade of second-degree murder and Marquis Wilson of first-degree murder, stemming from the shooting of a rival gang member. The jury also convicted both defendants of committing an armed robbery of a liquor store two days later. On appeal, both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their murder convictions. We find sufficient evidence to support Marquis’s conviction for first-degree murder. On the other hand, we conclude there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict on the murder count as to Boston. We therefore reverse Boston’s murder conviction.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate. The petition alleged the City of Los Angeles (city) violated the specific plan governing development in North Century City, violated the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC or municipal code), and failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), when it approved a development project that included the construction of a 37-story office tower at 1950 Avenue of the Stars (the project).

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Omar Samuel Serrato of sexual battery by restraint. He contends the trial court erred by (1) refusing to discharge a sitting juror; (2) admitting evidence of his prior “arrests”; and (3) failing to instruct the jury on the complete defense of unconsciousness. We affirm the judgment.

We reconsider this case on remand from the California Supreme Court. In our first decision in this case, People v. Diaz (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1323 (Diaz I), we declined in the first instance to strike defendant Robert Diaz’s Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement based on a 2009 felony conviction that had been reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. In our second decision, In re Diaz (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 812 (Diaz II), we reversed the trial court’s grant of habeas corpus relief striking that enhancement. The California Supreme court granted review in Diaz II, and later vacated our decision and directed us to reconsider it in light of People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857 (Buycks). Now, under Buycks, we affirm the trial court’s order striking the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement based on the 2009 reclassified conviction.

Defendants and appellants Duane A. Vantuinen, Randall Joseph Whitmore, and Edwin Lynn Valentine—working together with Joshua Box, Lorraine Vasquez, Cory Mulligan, Brian Duran and Margaret High—engaged in a conspiracy to burglarize the homes of Los Angeles and San Bernardino County newspaper subscribers who requested temporary vacation stops of newspaper delivery. Most of the victims were customers of the Los Angeles Times, but some subscribed to other papers such as the Inland Valley Bulletin.

We reconsider this case on remand from the California Supreme Court, which vacated our prior decision and directed us to reconsider in light of People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857 (Buycks). As we explain, we treat this appeal as a habeas corpus proceeding. Under Buycks, we strike five Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements (based on case Nos. MA050784, MA058073, PA046886, PA040187 and PA035889), and remand for resentencing.

Defendant Christopher Hayes Conatster, who is currently serving a six-year period of mandatory supervision on an eight-year split sentence, appeals an order denying his motion to dismiss two 3-year sentence enhancements imposed under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c). His motion was made on the ground that due to a change in the law effective January 1, 2018, his prior drug-related convictions no longer constitute qualifying convictions under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c), and that this change in the law applies retroactively. He contends the court erred in concluding that he is not eligible for relief because his judgment was final when the amendment became effective. There was no error and we shall therefore affirm the court’s order denying defendant’s motion.

Klark Deziray Hopkins pleaded no contest to the charge of driving in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while fleeing from a pursuing police officer. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2.) The court placed Hopkins on three years of probation. Hopkins appeals. She challenges a probation condition and the court’s imposition of a restitution fine. However, as part of her plea bargain, Hopkins waived her right to appeal. Her appeal challenges the breadth of her waiver and therefore the validity of her plea. As a result, it requires a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) Hopkins did not obtain one, so we dismiss her appeal without reaching the merits of her contentions.

Alan Griffin, in propria persona, challenges several orders of the probate court relating to the administration of the Kurt Markstein Revocable Trust. We affirm.

J.S. (Mother) challenges jurisdictional and dispositional orders in this juvenile dependency proceeding commenced under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. She contends the court misunderstood the law and there is no substantial evidence to support its findings. We will affirm.

Appellant admitted misdemeanor injuring a wireless communication device, a cell phone. The juvenile court declared appellant to be a ward of the court and placed him on probation, imposing various conditions, including an electronics search condition.
On appeal, appellant challenges the electronics search condition, claiming it must be stricken or modified because it is not reasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
We conclude the condition is valid under Lent but overbroad because it infringes on appellant’s rights to privacy and expression without being sufficiently tailored. We therefore modify the condition to limit the types of electronic information that may be searched. In all other respects, we affirm.