CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff John R. Conwell appeals a judgment entered in favor of defendants Ronald E. Mallen, Kendra Basner, Thomas L. Browne, and Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP. He seeks to challenge the trial court’s actions in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, in granting defendants’ demurrer to an earlier complaint, and in striking a professional negligence and malpractice cause of action in his cross-complaint.

Defendant Jose San Miguel appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of one felony count of inflicting injury upon his former cohabitant, D.C., and two misdemeanor counts of violating a court order. The trial court found that San Miguel had suffered a prior strike conviction and denied his request to dismiss the strike prior. The court imposed the midterm sentence of three years on the felony count, doubled for the strike prior, for a total prison term of six years. The court also imposed 60 days in county jail for the two misdemeanor counts, which had been satisfied by time served.

This case arises out of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s (“Deutsche Bank”) nonjudicial foreclosure of property located at 121 Klassen Lane in Watsonville, California. Appellant Niki-Alexander Shetty acquired title to the property after the foreclosure process had begun; however, he is not a party to the loan that is the basis for the foreclosure.
In an effort to obtain clear title to the property, Shetty sued Deutsche Bank for cancellation and expungement of a void written instrument, to quiet title, and to obtain declaratory relief. Shetty’s complaint asserts that Deutsche Bank is not authorized to foreclose on the property because it received an invalid assignment of the deed of trust on the property in 2009.

Appellant Shawn Arlin Donley pled no contest to elder abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1)) and admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i).) Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm.

Defendant Charlie Lee Brown contends on appeal that the trial court should have awarded presentence and postsentence custody credits from his prior case. The People concede and we agree. We remand for modification of the abstract of judgment.

A jury convicted William Thomas Merritt, defendant, of attempted murder and infliction of corporal injury upon the mother of his children after she was stabbed four times. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 273.5, subd. (f)(1).) After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of both counts and the trial court sentenced him to 16 years’ imprisonment.

Physician Anatasios Mavrakis (Mavrakis) was a fellow in The Regents of the University of California’s (University) Gastroenterology & Hepatology Fellowship Program (Program). Drs. Mohammad Sheikh, Rabindra Kundu, Jayanta Choudhury, and David Limsui were faculty in the fellowship program, while Dr. Ivy Darden was the director of the University’s internal medicine residency program (collectively, the individual defendants).

A jury convicted Sarah Chavez of kidnapping after she drove erratically and would not let her mother (Mother) out of the car. The trial court sentenced her to seven years in prison. On appeal, Chavez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's findings that Mother did not consent to being moved, and that Chavez did not actually and reasonably believe Mother consented to being moved. We affirm.

After finding Thong Van Tran violated his probation, the trial court formally revoked his probation and reimposed his ten-year prison sentence. On appeal, Tran contends the court erroneously: (1) concluded certain information was not protected by the attorney-client privilege; (2) based its revocation decision on privileged information; and (3) denied his motion for a continuance, thus violating his constitutional due process rights by restricting his ability to present his defense. We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Billy Glyn Sims, Jr., filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Barajas filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We therefore affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Earl Roberts filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 43.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Earl John Alvarez has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Channing Jacob Sharp appeals a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree residential burglary, conspiracy to commit first degree residential burglary, and resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer. He argues the trial court erred under Evidence Code section 352 when it allowed audio recordings of defendant being interrogated by law enforcement to be played for the jury because two statements made by the interrogating officers were prejudicial. He contends this error violated due process and his right to a fair trial. We disagree and affirm the trial court.