CA Unpub Decisions

Tomas Grajeda, Jr. appeals from a postjudgment resentencing order following a judgment of the United States District Court, Central District of California (District Court) on his petition for habeas corpus after three prior appeals. The District Court discharged Grajeda "from all consequences of the street gang allegation appended to his conviction for carrying a loaded firearm in public" (former Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1); count 2) and ordered the trial court to resentence Grajeda accordingly. Grajeda contends he was denied the right to counsel at the resentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment still does not reflect the correct amount of presentence conduct credits. He also contends recently amended section 12022.53, subdivision (h), applies retroactively and he should have the opportunity to request the court to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancement appended to his conviction for attempted murder (§§ 644/187, subd. (a); count 1).

A jury convicted Orlandous Tyrone Jackett of the first degree murder of Xavier F. (the victim) (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and found true an attached gang enhancement allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that he had personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The jury also convicted him of three counts each of possessing a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(l); counts 2, 3, and 7), and child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a); counts 4-6). Jackett later admitted one strike prior conviction, one serious felony prior conviction, and three prison prior convictions. He also admitted that he was released on bail when he committed the murder. The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of nine years plus 75 years to life in prison and a determinate term of 16 years four months in prison.

E.H. (mother) and J.H. (father) challenge the April 9, 2018 juvenile court orders setting hearings under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 366.26 and 388 for their son S.H. and temporarily suspending father’s visitation with the child. The petition is denied because petitioners have shown no error requiring reversal.

Mother, L.R., appeals from a judgment declaring her five children dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). She contends the evidence was insufficient to show her past violent confrontations with the children’s fathers put the children at current risk of suffering serious physical harm. Although mother at times appropriately involved law enforcement to respond to domestic violence incidents, the evidence showed she had been the aggressor on other occasions, and the juvenile court found her continuing conflicts with the children’s fathers posed an ongoing risk to the children. Substantial evidence supports the court’s finding. We affirm.

S.A. (Mother) appeals from a dispositional order entered pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c)(1). Mother argues there was no substantial evidence to support removing her two children, Dominic V. and Dennis V., from her care. Mother also argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering her to submit to six random drug tests. We affirm.

Defendants Beverly Hills Studios, LLC (BHS) and John T. Knight, M.D., Inc. (JTKMD) (collectively, defendants) appeal from the denial of their motion to compel arbitration in a dispute with plaintiffs and respondents Sean Fodor, HAWI Studio, and Sports Surgeons, LLC (Sports Surgeons) (collectively, plaintiffs). Among other things, the trial court found that defendants had waived the right to arbitrate through the actions of their principal, John Knight, who also was named as an individual defendant below. Knight in his individual capacity propounded discovery, successfully moved to compel responses to the discovery, and filed demurrers and a motion to strike the pleadings, actions that the trial court found benefitted defendants and were attributable to them.

In 2013, Arsen Manson was convicted of six felony counts related to marijuana possession and sales and sentenced to a prison term. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11360, subd. (a), 11359.) He completed his sentence.
In 2016, the voters passed Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which among other things allows for recreational use of marijuana for those 21 years old or older. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11362.1 et seq.)

Appellant Russell Lambert (father) appeals from an order after hearing filed July 13, 2017. The order arises from a hearing held five months earlier and was issued by a commissioner in connection with father’s request to modify his child support obligation. The order in question merely continued the hearing on the merits of father’s December 1, 2016 request for modification of child support, requiring the parties to submit additional information. By the time of the July 13, 2017 order subject to father’s appeal, neither a commissioner nor the court had ruled on father’s request to modify child support. Because father has appealed from a non-appealable order, we dismiss his appeal.

Defendant Fernando Rodriguez appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. A jury found defendant guilty of violating: Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (b), oral copulation or sexual penetration on a child under the age of 10, a felony (counts 1 & 5); section 288, subdivision (a), lewd conduct with a child, a felony (counts 2 & 6); section 647.6, subdivision (a)(1), annoying or molesting a minor, a misdemeanor (count 3); and section 313.1, subdivision (a), distributing or exhibiting harmful material to a minor, a misdemeanor (count 4). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 40 years to life on the felony counts and imposed one-year terms for the misdemeanor counts to be served concurrently. Defendant contends he received an unfair trial following an outburst by the victim’s father on the witness stand. Defendant also argues the judgment for count 3 must be reversed because the trial court gave conflicting jury instructions. We affirm.

Michael Edelstein appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint against his landlord, Single Room Occupancy Housing Corp. (SRO), after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. The trial court found that a judgment in favor of SRO in a prior action based on the same set of facts barred the present action under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Edelstein contends that claim preclusion is inapplicable because the present action is based on a different contract from the prior action. We conclude that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer.

After drinking heavily at a friend’s home on the evening of May 7, 2015, Michael Daniel Gardner (Gardner) stole his friend’s Mercedes Benz E350 and drove while intoxicated. While evading the police, Gardner accelerated to 127 miles per hour and collided with Marissa Vasquez’s Honda Civic, killing her. On appeal, Gardner contends there was insufficient evidence of Vasquez’s death as well as her cause of death. Gardner also argues that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to suppress the evidence from his warrantless blood draw. We affirm.

Plaintiffs Rene and Porfiria Lopez (plaintiffs) appeal from the judgment after the trial court granted a motion for nonsuit in favor of defendant and respondent State of California (defendant). Plaintiffs alleged that their son, Luis, a state prisoner, died as a result of prison employees’ delay in summoning medical aid when Luis suffered a seizure. The trial court ruled that plaintiffs required expert testimony to prove causation and entered a judgment of nonsuit after plaintiffs made clear they did not intend to call an expert witness. On appeal, plaintiffs contend they could prove causation without expert testimony. We concur with the trial court’s reasoning and affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. (Acco) appeals from a judgment denying Acco’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Acco’s writ petition sought review of an administrative decision adopted by the Registrar of the defendant and respondent the Contractors’ State License Board (Board), finding Acco in violation of Business and Professions Code section 7110 for failing to obtain a building permit before replacing a boiler.

Plaintiffs Sang Lee and Christopher Ko sued defendants Howard and Chong Hoon Park for the alleged breach of a settlement of disputes arising from a laundromat joint venture and related claims. Following a bench trial, the court issued a statement of decision including detailed factual findings and concluding plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof on their various causes of action.