CA Unpub Decisions

On January 2, 2018, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Steven Peter Depperschmidt with willfully and unlawfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon Jane Doe under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1), a felony (count 1). The complaint also alleged that defendant was convicted of the crime of spousal abuse, a felony, in violation of section 273.5, subdivision (f), and that he served a term in state prison for said offense and did not remain free of prison custody for, and did commit an offense resulting in a felony conviction during, a period of five years subsequent to the conclusion of said term, within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The complaint further alleged that defendant was convicted of two serious and violent felonies within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (c) and (e)(2)(A), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(a).

R.B. (Mother) is the mother of one-year-old C.B. C.B. was initially removed from Mother’s care due to the physical abuse of C.B.’s half sibling. Visitation between Mother and C.B. was reported as problematic from the beginning of the case because Mother refused to respect the caregiver’s boundaries and would feed C.B. foods that would make him sick. This activity progressed to the point that every time Mother visited C.B. he would experience violent vomiting and diarrhea. At a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21 hearing, the juvenile court found that visitation was detrimental to C.B. and temporarily suspended visitation until the matter could be investigated further and a full hearing on the issue could be conducted.

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 2, 2017, a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that defendant and appellant J.N. committed battery under Penal Code section 242. On July 21, 2017, J.N. entered into a stipulated informal probation agreement, which included orders not to communicate with the victim and to complete 60 hours of community service. Following a contested restitution hearing, the court ordered J.N. to pay the victim’s father, Zamora, $964.11 in restitution for income lost while attending court in the matter.
On January 17, 2018, the juvenile court accepted the probation officer’s determination that J.N. had completed a program of informal supervision and dismissed the petition.

Plaintiff and appellant Tennis Club Preservation Society (Club) initiated this action to enjoin defendants and respondents City of Palm Springs and Palm Springs City Council (collectively, Palm Springs) from issuing building and other permits necessary for completing phase III of a residential development known as the St. Baristo Project (Project) in the historic Tennis Club Neighborhood unless and until all conditions of approval and requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code (PSMC) are met. The trial court denied the request for injunctive relief, and the Club appeals, challenging the judgment. The Club contends (1) phase III violates the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; CEQA) because it does not comply with the mandatory mitigation measures; and (2) phase III must be reviewed and approved by Palm Springs because too much time has lapsed since completion of construction on phase II of the Project. We reject these contentions and aff

Defendant and appellant, Adecco USA, Inc. (Adecco), appeals from the trial court’s order denying Adecco’s motion to compel arbitration of a wrongful termination lawsuit brought by plaintiff and respondent, Jessica Duenas. Adecco contends the trial court erred in requiring proof of electronic security measures to authenticate Duenas’s electronic signature (e-signature) on a Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Agreement for Consultants/Associates (Arbitration Agreement). Adecco also contends the trial court erred in requiring proof of authentication of Adecco’s countersignature on the Arbitration Agreement. We reject Adecco’s contentions and conclude the trial court reasonably found that Adecco failed to meet its burden of proving Duenas electronically signed (e-signed) the Arbitration Agreement. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying Adecco’s motion to compel arbitration.

An information charged defendant Rodrigo Fernandez with assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm against victims Luis L. and Carlos L. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), counts 1 and 2, respectively). The jury convicted defendant on count 1 of assault with a deadly weapon, and of the lesser included offense of simple assault on count 2, a misdemeanor (§ 240). Defendant was granted two years' felony probation and was ordered to pay various fees and fines.
On appeal, defendant only challenges his conviction on count 1, arguing CALCRIM No. 875 allegedly misstates the law of assault with a deadly weapon when, as in the instant case, the weapon at issue—a baseball bat—is not "inherently deadly." Defendant also challenges the imposition of an $820 fine. As we explain, because the statutory basis of the $820 fine is not clear, we remand for that limited purpose only. In all other respects, we affirm defendant's judgment of conviction.

Nonoffending father, C.C., appeals the juvenile court’s finding that placement of his daughter, K.C., with father would be detrimental to her safety and well-being. Father did not request custody of K.C., but contends that he may be prejudiced by the court’s detriment finding in the event that he seeks custody of K.C. in the future. Finding substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order, we affirm.

Defendant Jonathan Joseph Fidone seeks habeas relief on the ground that his appointed trial counsel, Albert Cantu, was prejudicially deficient in turning over to the prosecution in advance of trial the defense investigator’s report on his interview with the prosecution’s main witness, Jimy Reyna. This report was highly incriminating, and the defense investigator, David Godoy, became the primary prosecution witness at trial, providing a far more incriminating account of Reyna’s observations than Reyna provided at trial or to the prosecution in advance of trial.

Defendant Steven Burns was convicted after jury trial of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and unlawful mutilation of human remains (Health & Saf. Code, § 7052). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife, during the commission of the murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for the indeterminate term of 15 years to life consecutive to the determinate term of three years.

In this case stemming from a soured business relationship, defendant Fantasia Distribution, Inc. (Fantasia), appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff XEO International, Ltd. (XEO). Fantasia argues the trial court, as the trier of fact, committed multiple errors in evaluating XEO’s breach of contract cause of action. It claims the court failed to apply the proper law, drew conclusions which lack evidentiary support, wrongfully awarded certain damages, and unwarrantedly rejected its contention that the contract at issue was void because XEO’s was not qualified to do business in California at the time it filed suit and at the time it entered into the contract with Fantasia. Fantasia also contends the court’s written statement of decision concerning its cross-complaint was inadequate because it lacked any analysis to support its conclusions. We disagree in all respects and, therefore, affirm the judgment.

Appellant/defendant Jason James Reyes pleaded no contest to two counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder. He was sentenced to 51 years to life in Kings County Superior Court case No. 12CM0820BHTA.
In a separate and unrelated case, defendant pleaded no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury on an inmate while they were housed in the Kings County Jail (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) in case No. 14CM2655HTA. He was sentenced to four years, to be served concurrently with the indeterminate life term imposed for the murder and attempted murder convictions.
Defendant filed notices of appeal in both cases.

Appellant/defendant Michael Antonio White was charged and convicted of count 1, second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and count 2, criminal threats (§ 422), and admitted three prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to eight years in prison.
On appeal, defendant challenges the evidence in support of both convictions. He also contends his pretrial motion to discharge his appointment counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) should have been granted. We affirm.

Manuel Arevalo (plaintiff) sued Giumarra Farms, Inc. (Giumarra Farms), and Miguel Ahumada, Jr. (Ahumada), (collectively, defendants) for breach of contract and other torts. After two years of litigation, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Shortly before plaintiff’s oppositions were due, he filed a procedurally defective request for a continuance. Plaintiff later filed untimely opposition papers.
The trial court refused to grant a continuance or consider plaintiff’s late-filed oppositions. Consequently, defendants were awarded summary judgment. On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court erred by not continuing the summary judgment proceedings. He does not deny the untimeliness of his oppositions or address the merits of defendants’ motions. We affirm.

Defendant Christopher Joel Coats entered a no contest plea to a misdemeanor charge for making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) and a felony charge for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Before the trial court accepted the plea, the parties stipulated the police report provided a factual basis for it. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced defendant to two years of probation.