CA Unpub Decisions

A jury heard the harrowing, terrifying testimony of a real estate agent who had been threatened by defendant David Burnhart at gunpoint in a model home, stripped from the waist down, and handcuffed to the clothes rod in a secluded bedroom as well as the testimony of defendant that he had forgotten he had a gun and handcuffs hooked to his pants which, unintentionally, frightened his victim, his denial that he had threatened her with the gun, and his insistence that he did not intend to rape, rob, or assault her. Rejecting defendant’s testimony, the jury convicted defendant of kidnapping to commit robbery, kidnapping to commit rape, assault with intent to commit rape, false imprisonment, criminal threats, possession of a firearm by a felon, and various enhancements. In a meritless challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, defendant ignores the fundamental principles limiting the scope of appellate review. The Attorney General concedes three sentencing errors and we reject the re

This case started when a water heater leaked from the inside of a second-floor apartment at the Mountainback Condominiums in Mammoth Lakes. Water found its way down to the first floor, where appellants Bob and Julie Bakas owned a condominium unit. Based on the resulting damage, the Bakases sued the Mountainback Condominium Owners Association (Mountainback). The Bakases did not allege the water heater failure in the upper floor apartment was the cause of their damages. Instead, they alleged Mountainback failed to properly maintain the common area plumbing in the building where the units were where the water leak occurred. This failure to maintain the common plumbing allegedly caused the water leak.

In September 2005 plaintiffs Paul Davis and Ann Haas (collectively Davis) purchased a newly built home from Lynda Fletcher and Tim Huber. In December 2011 Davis filed a first amended complaint against several defendants including the real estate broker in the transaction, defendant Coldwell Banker Doug Arnold Real Estate (Coldwell Banker), asserting various claims including unfair business practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The trial court sustained Coldwell Banker’s demurrer to Davis’s second amended complaint without leave to amend. Davis appeals, challenging the trial court’s finding that the statute of limitations barred their complaint and the court erred in denying leave to amend. We shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Jaime Mundo Julian appeals from the judgment entered after the Superior Court terminated his probation and ordered the execution of the previously suspended prison sentence. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On September 5, 2018, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

In 1986, Rodabaugh pled guilty to forgery of a credit card application (§ 470). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Rodabaugh on probation.
In March 2018, Rodabaugh filed an application to have the forgery charge reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. The trial court denied the petition finding that (1) he did not show that the value of the credit card was $950 or less; (2) he posed an unreasonable risk to public safety; and (3) forgery of a credit card application does not fall within Proposition 47’s provisions.

In 2003, a jury convicted appellant Cornell Walker of possession of a firearm by a felon. He was found to have suffered six prior strike convictions under the Three Strikes law, and was sentenced to 25 years to life. In March 2018, he filed a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. After issuing an order to show cause and receiving briefing, the trial court denied the petition, finding that defendant was statutorily ineligible for resentencing because he was armed with a firearm during the offense.. Appellant appeals, contending that because the gun he was convicted of possessing was found under the back seat of his car, and the officers who seized it never observed him in the car, it was not readily available for him to use, and therefore he was not armed with it within the meaning of Proposition 36. We disagree and affirm.

Police officers responding to a call about a disruptive crowd found defendant Josue Sanchez “doing doughnuts” in a convertible while numerous people looked on. Defendant sped away and led the officers on a brief high-speed chase that ended when he crashed into the median and three parked cars. Defendant fled the scene on foot and was apprehended a few blocks away. A jury found him guilty of recklessly fleeing a pursuing police officer and hit and run resulting in property damage.

Rudy Latscha (Latscha) was convicted of the January 28, 2016 attempted murder of Louie Gomez; the January 28, 2016 assault with a firearm against Maribel Montoya and Jose Navarro; the February 8, 2016 attempted murder of Gomez; and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. Firearm and gang allegations were found true, as were allegations that he suffered one prior strike conviction and had served one prior prison term.

A few days later, De.J.’s mother saw X.B. wearing her son’s stolen shoes. Police arrested him and found J.A.’s speaker in his backpack. Police interviewed each of the cousins separately and showed them six photographs of potential suspects. All three of the cousins identified X.B. as one of the robbers. All three said the robbers used the term “6-Deuce Brims.” Two of them said that one of the robbers had a gun in his waistband during the robbery.

Carlos S. appeals from the juvenile court’s order of wardship based on a sustained Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition that alleged one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594) with a gang enhancement (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (d)). On appeal, Carlos challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s true finding on the gang enhancement allegation, and its finding that the underlying offense caused $400 or more in damage, as required for a felony offense. Carlos also raises various claims about the People’s alleged reliance on certain cost-averaging restitution provisions to prove that the vandalism was a felony. We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the gang enhancement finding, but not the felony vandalism finding. We accordingly reverse the juvenile court’s order in part and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Steven and Jadwiga Markoff appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer filed by Bank of America, N.A., and seven bank employees (collectively, the Bank) to the Markoffs’ fourth amended complaint. The Markoffs alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, intentional interference with contractual relations, defamation, and false light invasion of privacy arising out the Bank’s refusal to approve the sale of property to the Markoffs and the Bank’s statements that it rejected the sale because of collusion between the Markoffs and the sellers to delay foreclosure on the property.

A juvenile court determined that petitioner J.G. was not suitable for treatment in the juvenile system and transferred his case to a court of criminal jurisdiction. J.G. challenges that ruling, arguing the juvenile court abused its discretion when analyzing the factors enumerated under Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. Although the juvenile court’s explanation for transferring J.G. to criminal court initially gave us pause, we conclude the ruling was supported by substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. We will deny J.G.’s petition for a writ of mandate.

A jury found defendant Michael Frederick Hart guilty of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The trial court sentenced Hart to the low term of two years in prison and awarded him 48 days of credit for time in actual custody plus section 4019 credit.
Hart now appeals raising three issues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation; (2) the trial court imposed a prison term to punish him for exercising his right to a jury trial; and (3) remand is required because the trial court erroneously calculated his pre-sentence custody credits.
We agree a remand is warranted to give the trial court the opportunity to re-calculate Hart’s pre-sentence custody credits. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

This appeal is from a civil harassment restraining order (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6) that Lisa Miller obtained against Dalia Davis. Acting in propria persona, Davis contends that (1) Miller failed to prove she was entitled to a restraining order and (2) the trial court failed to hold a fair hearing. We affirm the order but remand this case for correction of a discrepancy in the record with respect to Miller’s name.