CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant, Deondre Marquise Jackson, pled guilty to accessory to robbery after the fact. (Pen. Code, § 32, count 2.) The court granted defendant three years of felony probation, a term of which required that he submit to a search and seizure of any electronic device in his possession. On appeal, defendant contends the search condition is unconstitutional. We affirm.

In this action, Margaret Ieng seeks damages arising out of the 2007 foreclosure on her house in Colton. Initially, the only named defendant was EMC Mortgage Corporation (EMC); later, Ieng added other defendants. Eventually, the trial court dismissed the action, solely as against EMC, based on failure to bring it to trial within five years. It then granted EMC’s motion for contractual attorney fees.
Ieng appeals from the order awarding attorney fees. We find no error. Hence, we will affirm.

Defendant and a shotgun-wielding accomplice committed a “room invasion” robbery (the victims were renting one bedroom of a house). Both victims identified both perpetrators, to the police as well as at trial. After the jury returned its verdict, however, one of the victims contacted the prosecution and said that she had been mistaken in her identification of defendant’s accomplice — although she was still certain of her identification of defendant.

Defendant Leonard B. Cartwright III was convicted of 12 counts for committing lewd acts on children under age 14. (See Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) On appeal, he argues that his conviction was tainted by the erroneous admission of certain evidence and by an inappropriate prosecutorial comment during closing argument. As to the former, we assume that admission of the evidence—a letter penned by one of Cartwright's victims, disclosing his abuses—was error, but nevertheless find no basis for reversal given a dearth of potential prejudice. As to the latter claim of error, Cartwright contends the prosecutor improperly disparaged the exercise of his right against self-incrimination. But as we read the record, there was nothing improper about the prosecutor's remark. Accordingly, we affirm.

Mother, T.N., appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for modification for reinstatement of reunification services. We will affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Wilbert James Eddins asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Kane Michael Thompson of first degree murder (count one) and second degree robbery (count two). The jury found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery. The jury found not true the allegations, with respect to both counts, that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death. Based on his conviction for count one, the trial court sentenced defendant to the mandatory lesser sentence for special circumstance murder, life imprisonment without parole.

Edward Derius White was stabbed to death in a Sacramento rooming house. A jury found defendants and appellants Monterio Roberts and Monica Njoku, brother and sister, guilty of second degree murder. (§ 187, subd. (a)) A third codefendant—Roberts’ wife, Taiish Simon—was acquitted. The trial court sentenced Njoku to 15 years and Roberts to 16 years in state prison.

After Jerry Ponzo allegedly failed to disclose material facts and engaged in damaging conduct, Ronald Miller and Brenda Crum attempted to negotiate the dissolution of Enviro-Building Systems, Inc. (EBS), a corporation they owned with Ponzo and his wife, Tracy Dillon. Ponzo responded with demands for cash and concessions, and litigation ensued. Among the various claims and cross-claims, Miller and Crum sued Ponzo, Dillon and their corporation Ivy Screen, Inc. doing business as Back Yard Dream (Ivy Screen) for fraud.

Defendant Kenneth W. Barnette shot and killed Darryl Hill and shot at the vehicle occupied by some of Hill’s family members. A jury convicted him of first degree murder, attempted murder, and shooting at an occupied vehicle. The trial court sentenced him to a determinate term of five years for shooting at an occupied vehicle, an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for murder, life with the possibility of parole for attempted murder, and two terms of 25 years to life for firearm enhancements.

Defendants Raphael Abduh-Salam and Rena Abduh-Salam appeal from convictions of multiple crimes arising from three incidents of road-rage. Raphael contends (1) insufficient evidence supports his conviction of assault with a firearm; and (2) the trial court should reconsider a firearm enhancement imposed on him. Rena contends (1) insufficient evidence supports her conviction of making criminal threats; (2) the California causation standard applied to criminal threats is unconstitutional; and (3) the trial court erred by not instructing on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats.
Except to remand on the firearm enhancement, we affirm the judgment.

On July 17, 2017, defendant Natashia Arthur pleaded no contest to one count of misdemeanor vandalism, in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a). She had been charged with damaging the hood of a Nissan Altima owned by Tara Harper (victim). The court sentenced defendant to three years of probation and ordered her to pay restitution to the victim pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f), in an amount to be determined at a later hearing.

Richard Leider appeals a judgment entered following his guilty plea to the offer or sale of securities by means of an untrue statement of material fact, and to theft from an elder or dependent adult, with admissions that the takings exceeded $65,000, the late discovery of the crimes, and the tolling of the statute of limitations. (Corp. Code, § 25401; Pen. Code, §§ 368, subd. (d), former 12022.6, subd. (a)(1), 803, subds. (c) & (d).)

Crossroads Intercontinental, Ltd. brought an action against Avenue Real Estate International, doing business as Engel & Volkers Los Angeles, alleging Avenue Real Estate failed to make payments to Crossroads pursuant to an assignment order under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510. The trial court sustained Avenue Real Estate’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice, ruling a judgment creditor does not have a private right of action under section 708.510 against a third party obligor who fails to make payments pursuant to a post-judgment assignment order. Although there are remedies for an obligor’s failure to comply with section 708.510, a separate action for violation of that statute is not one of them. Nevertheless, Crossroads may be able to state a cause of action as an assignee of the judgment debtor’s rights.