CA Unpub Decisions

Charles Jayson Hanson, a jeweler in Newport Beach, gave his clients jewelry with fake or lower quality stones than they had agreed to purchase. A jury convicted Hanson of first degree residential burglary, multiple counts of grand theft, special allegations, and sentencing enhancements. The court sentenced him to six years and four months in prison. Hanson’s appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the burglary conviction and the jury’s special allegation finding he committed theft of an amount exceeding $100,000. We conclude his arguments have merit, and both the burglary conviction and special allegation must be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing.

Appellant Vincent Andrew Gorski appeals his conviction of one count of exhibiting a firearm (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(2); count 2). Appellant contests the admission of certain evidence at his trial and challenges statements made by the prosecutor as evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, appellant challenges the decision not to give certain jury instructions.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

In this wage and hour class and representative action, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment brought by defendant AMN Services, LLC (AMN), and denied motions for summary adjudication of one cause of action and one affirmative defense brought by plaintiff Kennedy Donohue, individually and on behalf of five certified plaintiff classes she represents (together Plaintiffs). In her appeal from the judgment, Donohue challenges the grant of AMN's motion for summary judgment and the denial of her motion for summary adjudication of one of the causes of action. On appeal, Donohue also challenges what she characterizes as the trial court's "fail[ure] to hear a proper motion for reconsideration" of the summary judgment and summary adjudication rulings.

Defendant pleaded no contest to felony assault and was sentenced to five-years of probation and 180 days in jail with credit for 49 days served. The court imposed the mandatory fines, fees, and assessments. The stipulated factual basis for the plea was defendant’s swinging a tree limb at a Starbuck’s employee.
Thereafter, the People filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation for failing to obey all laws based upon his arrest and charge for violations of resisting an executive officer (§ 69), four violations of resisting a peace officer, and possessing drug paraphernalia. Defendant received a court trial and was convicted in case No. 17FE015676 of one count of resisting an executive officer, two counts of resisting a peace officer and two counts of possessing drug paraphernalia. Because of these convictions, the court found defendant violated the probation term that he obey all laws and referred the matter for a probation presentence report.

Appointed counsel for defendant Deandrea Jovell Farlow asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
A jury found defendant guilty of three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), three counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and 20 counts of false imprisonment by force (§ 236/237). It also found true the special allegation that defendant was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) in all but three of those counts. Defendant was sentenced to serve a total prison term of 11 years 8 months. His appeal from this conviction (case No. C066579) was affirmed in full by this court on August 22, 2012.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua Lee Scarbrough asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having concluded defendant has appealed from a nonappealable order, we will dismiss the appeal. (People v. Mendez (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 32, 34; People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208.)

Bradley Capps, an employee of Viking Construction Company, fell to his death from a bridge while working on a construction project for defendant State of California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). Plaintiffs, Capps’s surviving wife and children, brought suit against CalTrans, alleging the accident occurred while Capps was performing work at the specific direction of CalTrans. CalTrans successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that it was not liable per Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette), which generally prohibits an independent contractor or his employees from suing the hirer of the contractor for workplace injuries, and the exception for negligent exercise of retained control did not apply.

Defendant Mark Gilbert Duenas appeals following his conviction for first degree murder of his wife, Karen Duenas, in her bedroom in their Cottonwood home in Shasta County. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); unless otherwise set forth, statutory section references that follow are found in the Penal Code.) Defendant claims evidentiary and instructional error and ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to make evidentiary objections to criminalist experiments with blood, law enforcement officer testimony about blood, and the value of retirement assets defendant might lose in a divorce. The guilty verdict came in a second trial after a jury at a first trial was unable to reach a verdict.

Appellant Saul Pelayo appeals the order of the superior court denying his motion for resentencing under Senate Bill
No. 620. (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (c), as amended by Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2018.)
Appellant was convicted in 1999 of second degree murder with personal use of a firearm. He was sentenced to prison for
15 years to life, with a 10-year firearm use enhancement. This Court affirmed the judgment in a non-published opinion filed October 4, 2000 (case No. B137409).

Appellant Jacqueline M. (mother), the mother of Bastian D. (born Apr. 2009), appeals the denial of her petition, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, seeking return of Bastian to her custody, or in the alternative, family reunification services. Mother contends the juvenile court erred by denying her section 388 petition and by denying her an evidentiary hearing on the petition.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying mother’s section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing. We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Over the course of 13 months, the juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over T.N., Jr. (T.N.), terminated reunification services provided to his father, T.N., Sr. (Father), and eventually terminated Father’s parental rights over T.N. The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) concedes it inadequately investigated whether T.N. was an Indian child within the meaning of state and federal law. We accept the concession and are thus left with only one issue to resolve: whether the manner in which the juvenile court sent notice to Father of his appellate rights, which did not strictly comply with a statute and rule requiring notice to be sent to his “last known address,” means he can now challenge the court’s decision to terminate his reunification services—a challenge that would otherwise be barred by his failure to earlier seek appellate court review of that decision.

Defendant and appellant Adrian Juan Lloyd (defendant) appeals from an order denying his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest to attempted second degree murder. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, and that his plea was not voluntary and intelligent. We find no merit to defendant’s contentions, and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Adrian Juan Lloyd (defendant) appeals from an order denying his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest to attempted second degree murder. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, and that his plea was not voluntary and intelligent. We find no merit to defendant’s contentions, and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Nino Gevorkova (plaintiff) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indentured trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-1 (collectively, defendants) after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint. We affirm the judgment.