CA Unpub Decisions

Craig William Voss appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) Voss previously pled guilty to identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), a felony. Voss claims his conduct in committing that identity theft offense met the elements of shoplifting under Proposition 47 and his conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor. We conclude the trial court erred by ruling Voss was ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47. We reverse and remand.

Defendant and appellant Norman Elder Grundy appeals from the superior court’s denial of his petition under Proposition 47 to reduce his second degree commercial burglary conviction to a misdemeanor. Grundy asks us to refuse to follow the published cases holding that the petitioner bears the burden of proving the value of the property he took was $950 or less. We decline that invitation, and affirm. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the superior court’s consideration of any later petition Grundy may file that contains evidence of his eligibility for relief under Proposition 47.

In May 2013, the family court ordered Martin Richard Salazar (Martin) to pay spousal support to Teri Syfan-Salazar (Teri). In July 2017, the parties stipulated to an order providing, among other things, for a buyout and termination of spousal support. We consider whether Teri has affirmatively demonstrated her consent to the July 2017 stipulation was obtained by coercion.

This case has its genesis in a complaint by MDA US Systems, LLC (MDA) against appellant Motiv Space Systems, Inc. (Motiv), and appellants Christopher Thayer (Thayer), Brett Lindenfeld (Lindenfeld), Thomas McCarthy (McCarthy), and Richard Fleischner (Fleischner) (collectively, the individual appellants). The individual appellants left their employment at MDA to form Motiv. Based on the individual appellants’ actions in forming and operating Motiv in breach of various agreements and common law principles, MDA sued them and Motiv, alleging causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, interference with contractual relations, and unfair competition.

Defendant and appellant Kenneth Demont Anderson was convicted by jury of sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). Defendant was sentenced to nine years in state prison. The court imposed the low term of three years, which it doubled under the three strikes law due to defendant’s prior conviction of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The court imposed an additional three years pursuant to section 11370.2 based on defendant’s prior conviction under section 11352. The court imposed a $50 laboratory fine pursuant to section 11372.5 plus a $145 penalty assessment.

A Los Angeles jury convicted defendant Jose Javier Magana (defendant) of attempted premeditated murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and aggravated mayhem. The jury heard evidence defendant armed himself with a baseball bat and attacked two other men, including one who was lying face up on the ground and trying to cover his face and head. The injuries defendant inflicted to the heads of the victims were severe and life-threatening. We are asked to decide whether substantial evidence supports defendant’s convictions, whether the prosecution (without contemporaneous objection) misstated the evidence during closing argument, and whether defendant had a sufficient opportunity under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) to make a record at sentencing for a future youth offender parole hearing.

After Jamshid Lavi (Lavi) prevailed in an action on a contract containing an attorney fees provision against Simon and Shahrzad Cohen (collectively the Cohens), the trial court awarded Lavi his attorney fees. The Cohens now appeal that attorney fees order, contending that Lavi refused to mediate, thereby violating a condition precedent to any attorney fees award. We reject that contention and affirm the order.

Defendants Elieser Bencomo and Sendy Fernandez Enriq appeal from a judgment entered after they pled no contest to trafficking more than four kilograms of cocaine. They contend the trial court erred by denying their motion to suppress the drugs found in a warrantless search of Bencomo’s truck. We conclude the search was justified under the automobile exception because it was supported by probable cause. We therefore affirm.

Jennifer Jackson sued Dignity Health, doing business as California Hospital Medical Center (California Hospital), for medical malpractice. After a bench trial, the trial court found in the hospital’s favor. On appeal, Jackson contends the hospital’s trial attorney tampered with witnesses. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

M.O., the mother of three-year-old N.O., whose parental rights were terminated pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, challenges the juvenile court’s decision to place her son with the foster mother—who provided him with required specialized medical care—rather than with her sister. Plaintiff Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) contends M.O. (Mother) lacks standing to appeal the order because her parental rights were terminated. We agree and dismiss the appeal because Mother lacks standing, but note that—if we had jurisdiction to decide the case on the merits—we would affirm on that ground as well.

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.

Appellant Julie R. Weiss appeals from a judgment denying her petition to vacate an arbitration award to respondent Vidyo, Inc. Finding no prejudicial, reviewable error, we affirm.

Approximately 540,000 votes were cast in the June 2018 primary election for the Office of District Attorney in Orange County. The four candidates received the following shares of the vote: (1) Tony Rackauckas, 38.5 percent; (2) Todd Spitzer, 35.2 percent; (3) Brett Murdock, 22.4 percent; and (4) Lenore Albert-Sheridan, 3.8 percent. The voters are scheduled to choose between Rackauckas and Spitzer in a November 2018 runoff election.
Albert contests the further participation of Spitzer and Murdock (as Spitzer’s potential replacement) in the election. As grounds for disqualifying Spitzer and Murdock, Albert claims they each made false statements about her during their campaigns and thereby caused her defeat. The trial court declined to grant the requested relief, concluding that no false statements were made about Albert and that any statements made were not a major contributing cause in Albert’s defeat. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a postjudgment order finding that he violated the terms of his parole, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Following her analysis of potential appellate issues, appointed counsel informed us in her declaration that she consulted with a staff attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel then filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In that brief, counsel declined to identify potential appellate issues as suggested in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Instead, she invited this court to conduct its required review of the record “unfettered by counsel’s prior thought processes.” We have now done exactly that.