CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Paras Jhokke (Jhokke) appeals from the dismissal of his complaint after the trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer brought by defendant and respondent City of Los Angeles (City) based on the Government Torts Claims Act (the Act). After review, we conclude the trial court correctly ruled Jhokke’s complaint—which stems from his alleged false arrest in April 2015—was barred for failing to comply with the claim presentation requirement under the Act. (Gov. Code § 945.4.) Accordingly, we affirm.

Defendant Richard Rangel appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of second degree robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and found allegations in support of firearm and gang enhancements true. Rangel contends that the trial court improperly denied his request to represent himself at trial, committed misconduct by questioning prosecution witnesses, and abused its discretion by imposing the maximum allowable sentence. Rangel also filed a supplemental brief seeking remand for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 1393), which as of January 1, 2019, will grant trial courts the discretion to strike the five-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) for a prior conviction.

Petitioner Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific Bell) petitions for a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its November 22, 2017 order denying its motion to strike the first amended complaint in its entirety or, in the alternative, its allegations invoking the relation-back doctrine, and to issue an order granting the motion. We issued a stay on January 17, 2018, pending this court’s resolution of the petition, and an alternative writ of mandate. The respondent court declined to vacate its order, so we issued an order to show cause why a writ of mandate should not issue. Because we agree that the superior court should have stricken the relation-back doctrine allegations from the first amended complaint, we grant the petition and direct the superior court to vacate its order denying petitioner’s motion and enter a new and different order granting the motion.

Defendants and appellants Sino Enterprises, Inc., New Sino, Inc., CL & LZ, LLC, Chien Ping Luu, and Lixia Zhao appeal from the judgment entered for plaintiff Langer’s Delicatessen, Inc., in Langer’s action alleging that they conspired to fraudulently hide the assets of Sino in order to avoid paying a judgment for Langer’s from an earlier action. We reject appellants’ contentions that the judgment—consisting almost exclusively of Langer’s attorney fees and costs from this action—must be reversed because it was an untimely and improper attempt to enforce the judgment from the earlier action.

K.M. appeals an order adjudicating her a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The juvenile court found true the allegation that K.M. committed second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The court ordered that a previous suitable placement order remain in effect. It set a maximum confinement period of five years.
K.M. contends the juvenile court erred in sustaining the petition because there was insufficient evidence to support the robbery true finding. We affirm.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Vincent Padilla (defendant) of violating Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a), which makes it a crime to inflict corporal injury on a spouse or former spouse, a cohabitant or former cohabitant, a fiancé, or someone with whom the offender has or had an engagement or a “dating relationship.” It is the last of these categories that is at issue in this appeal. Specifically, we consider whether the prosecution introduced sufficient evidence of “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations” (§§ 273.5, subd. (b)(3), 243, subd. (f)(10)) between defendant and vict

William Robert Goodfellow appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to second degree commercial burglary, a felony (Pen. Code, § 459), and two counts of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)). Because of his prior convictions, he fell within the purview of the three strikes law. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate six years eight months in state prison. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goodfellow’s “motion to strike priors.” (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).) We affirm.

Defendant and appellant T.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s issuance of a pre-adjudication restraining order against him. T.C. contends he did not receive notice prior to the hearing of the People’s intent to seek the restraining order, and the order is unsupported by substantial evidence. We agree that T.C. did not receive adequate notice and therefore reverse.

Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. (Frontline) and Accounts Receivable Acquisitions, LLC (ARA) (collectively Frontline/ARA), as assignees of Munir Uwaydah, M.D. and Hollywood Community Hospital (the Hospital) respectively, filed a complaint for breach of contract against the law firms of DeWitt, Algorri & Algorri, APC (Algorri) and Bergener & Associates (Bergener), contending they failed to honor medical liens on their client’s recovery from a personal injury suit. After Frontline/ARA’s presentation of evidence at trial, Algorri and Bergener filed a motion for nonsuit, which the trial court granted. Frontline/ARA appeals from the judgment subsequently entered. We affirm.

Iconic musician Carole King, in her hit song “Smackwater Jack,” explains a simple and straightforward sentiment: “[Y]ou can’t talk to a man [w]ith a shotgun in his hand . . . .” Aylett Drake Hauki appeals his conviction by jury for assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)) with a firearm use enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)), and negligent discharge of a firearm (§ 246.3). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant five years probation with 364 days county jail. We affirm.

Willie Eugene Campbell appeals the judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 4), possession of ammunition by a felon, possession of a stun gun by a felon (§ 22610, subd. (a); count 6), and possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm. Campbell admitted he suffered a prior prison term for purposes of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Campbell contends the trial court was obligated to stay imposition of sentence on counts 4 and 5 pursuant to section 654. He also contends the one-year enhancement imposed pursuant to section 667.5 must be stricken because it is not supported by substantial evidence. The People concede that the sentence on count 5 should be stayed, and that the one-year enhancement should be stricken in the interest of justice. We accept these concessions. We affirm the judgment as modified.

Plaintiffs Wei Han and Bliss Media US, LLC sued defendants Kylin Pictures, Inc. and Kylin Pictures International, Inc. for defamation based on statements made by defendants’ spokesman during a December 2016 press conference as reported in two articles. Defendants filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, also known as the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted defendants’ motion and awarded attorney fees and costs.
We find defendants have not shown that the allegedly defamatory statements are acts “in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue” as defined by section 425.16, subdivision (e). Accordingly, the
anti-SLAPP statute does not apply. We therefore reverse the order granting the special motion to strike and vacate the award of fees and costs.

A jury convicted Jerell Demont Robinson of second degree murder after he stomped his inebriated girlfriend to death. The trial court sentenced Robinson to an indeterminate state prison term of 15 years to life. On appeal, Robinson contends the judgment must be reversed due to jury tampering and, alternatively, if the judgment is not reversed, he is entitled to a limited remand for the purpose of making a record for use at a future youthful offender parole hearing. (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261.) We remand the matter so that Robinson can make a record for a youth offender parole hearing and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Shadrick Grant appeals from a judgment entered after he was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon and domestic violence on a former girlfriend. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one count of attempted murder. As part of a negotiated plea, Grant admitted he suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction and two prior prison sentences. The trial court dismissed the attempted murder charge. The trial court sentenced Grant to an aggregate prison term of 19 years. Grant contends on appeal the trial court erred in selecting the upper terms for his sentence on the domestic violence count and the great bodily injury enhancement. Grant also asserts ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Grant waived his right to appeal his sentence as part of the negotiated plea, we dismiss the appeal.