CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Matthew Graves appeals his convictions for pimping a minor 16 years of age or older (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (b)(1)) and related charges. His sole challenge on appeal is prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. We affirm.

After the juvenile court denied his Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1 motion to suppress evidence, appellant Andrew R. admitted an allegation that he assaulted a police officer under Penal Code section 243, subdivision (c)(2). The court declared Andrew a ward of the court and placed him on probation. Andrew now appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his suppression motion. He contends he was subject to a de facto arrest by police without probable cause, or alternatively, he argues police detained him without reasonable suspicion. As such, he asserts all the evidence obtained from his unconstitutional seizure should have been excluded and the court’s dispositional order should be reversed. We agree with the juvenile court’s determination that the police’s initial seizure of Andrew was a detention, not an arrest, supported by reasonable suspicion. We conclude no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, so we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Chanowk Pendergrass (appellant) was convicted after jury trial of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code § 191.5, subd. (a)) and other offenses. On appeal he contends the trial court made several evidentiary errors and abused its discretion in imposing the upper term for the manslaughter conviction. We affirm.

Plaintiffs and appellants Michael Guen and Patricia Bernard (appellants) filed a lawsuit against defendants and respondents Jula Pereira and Joerg Hilger (respondents), alleging a defamation cause of action and three causes of action alleging interference with business relations. The claims arise out of a website created by respondents that accuses appellant Guen of running a cult, among other misconduct. Respondents moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Section 425.16). The trial court granted the motion. We affirm.

Shozaburo Nakamura appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of the first degree murder of his ex-wife, Eiko Nakamura (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189). He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda), in refusing to issue certain jury instructions, and in denying probation. We affirm.

A landlord, 384 Foster City Boulevard Partners (FCB Partners), sued its former tenant, Applied Biosystems, LLC (Applied Biosystems), for lost rent damages it incurred due to the inability to lease the premises after Applied Biosystems failed to repair and restore the leased premises at the end of the lease. In response to Applied Biosystems’s demurrer to the third amended complaint, the trial court applied then-recently-enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 (which limits a plaintiff to three amendments to a complaint before the case is at issue (§ 430.41, subd. (e)(1)), sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and entered judgment for Applied Biosystems. FCB Partners filed a motion for a new trial. The court reconsidered its position, concluded that its prior order was an error of law and granted FCB Partners’s motion. Applied Biosystems appeals from the grant of the new trial motion. We affirm.

Ahmad Rezvani (Husband) appeals a family court order characterizing certain real property as a community asset and requiring him to reimburse Tahereh Sadri (Wife) for her medical expenses. We affirm.

Defendant Roy Lacy was convicted of six counts of robbery, arising from robberies at three bank branches in January 2013. The jury heard eyewitness testimony identifying Lacy as the robber and viewed security images depicting him robbing each branch. The court admitted portions of Lacy’s recorded statement confessing to all three robberies. Lacy contends his confession in Florida should have been excluded because officers ignored his unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) and coerced the statements through promises that he could serve any Florida prison sentence concurrently with a California sentence in California and avoid a life sentence. Lacy also contends the trial court erred by not excluding a statement in his confession. We affirm.

Proposition 47, passed by the voters in November 2014, reclassified certain nonserious, nonviolent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. The measure also enacted Penal Code section 1170.18, which permits offenders to petition the superior court to redesignate their felony convictions and reduce their sentences based on the new misdemeanor classification.

Steve Ryan sued Mitchell Rosenfeld and related parties for causes of action that grew out of a real estate investment partnership. Four years later, when the case was called for trial, Ryan’s attorney was not ready to proceed, and Ryan himself was absent from court, hospitalized in Tijuana, Mexico. The trial court dismissed the action for delay in prosecution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410, subd. (a).) Two months later, Ryan filed a motion to vacate the dismissal under section 473, which was denied. He now appeals from that denial but has not provided us with a sufficient record to assess the judge’s reasons for denying the motion. As a result, we find he has forfeited his only issue on appeal, and we will affirm the order denying Ryan’s motion to vacate.

C.V. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order sustaining a supplemental petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 and removing her daughter, C.J., from her custody under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). Mother contends that neither the jurisdictional findings nor the decision to remove C.J. was supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and therefore must affirm the order.

In July 2016, the Monterey County Department of Social Services (Department) filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1), relative to two girls, D.G. and A.G. (collectively, the minors). The Department alleged that the prior month the minors’ mother, R.J. (mother), had gone to Sacramento and had left the minors, their sibling, V.G., and three half-siblings with their maternal grandparents. The grandparents were not guardians of the children. The investigating social worker visiting the grandparents’ home found minimal food in the house and that the children were hungry and unsupervised. The father of V.G. and the minors, J.G. (father), arrived later and told the social worker that he had cared for the children for approximately one week, but had then returned them to their grandparents because he had no day care. The Department placed the minors and the other children into protective custody.

Robert Aguirre appeals from an order denying his petition for conditional release from inpatient hospitalization arising from a criminal adjudication of not guilty by reason of insanity. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order and asserts that his due process and equal protection rights were violated. We will affirm the order.

Appellant Gabriel Clark challenges the trial court’s child custody order and its imposition of sanctions under Family Code section 271. He contends that reversal is required because the trial court (1) was biased against him and deprived him of due process and a fair hearing, (2) denied him the right to present evidence, (3) denied his request for a continuance, (4) abused its discretion in adopting its custody order, (5) improperly relied on the input of two of Clark’s daughters, and (6) improperly required Clark to pay attorney’s fees to respondent Milae Weiser’s attorney under Family Code section 271.