CA Unpub Decisions

This appeal involves a judgment entered in a marital dissolution proceeding that, as relevant here, set spousal support and reserved jurisdiction to divide the net proceeds from the sale of stock in a medical practice as well as the practice’s accounts receivable and accounts payable existing prior to the parties’ separation. In fact, the medical practice was sold through a sale of the practice’s assets and supplies (rather than its stock) around the time that appellant Christopher Campbell and respondent Karen Campbell signed their marital settlement agreement (MSA) and before the judgment incorporating the agreement was entered.

Mother, J.H., appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order declaring her daughter, L.H., a dependent child. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding, and we affirm.

Caroline D. (mother) appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders of the juvenile court. She contends there is insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings; the juvenile court erred by failing to make removal findings pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c); and the court improperly delegated to the child’s therapist authority to determine whether mother would be permitted visitation with the child. We find no error, and thus we affirm.

Defendant Woody Vainqueur appeals from his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant contends the People infringed his due process rights established in Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610, 619 (Doyle) by eliciting testimony at his jury trial about his post-detention silence. We affirm the judgment because there was no Doyle error.

This appeal involves the intersection of several remedies by which civil judgments in California may be enforced. Judgment debtor Gerald Goldstein (Goldstein) is the person against whom a judgment has been rendered. Judgment creditor Glaser, Weil, Fink, Howard, Avchen & Shapiro, LLP (Glaser Weil) is the entity in whose favor a judgment has been rendered. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, Glaser, Weil formally examined Goldstein to discover property it could seize to satisfy its money judgment. After the judgment debtor examination, Glaser Weil then applied for three remedies to take control of Goldstein’s assets to satisfy the judgment: a writ of execution, an assignment order, and a turnover over. The assignment and turnover orders are the subject of this appeal.

In 1991, Daniel Abergel, who is an Israeli citizen, pleaded no contest to one count of possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). Abergel was subsequently deported to Israel, but he returned to the United States in 1992. In 2017, federal immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings against Abergel. In response, he filed a motion in superior court to vacate the 1991 conviction on the basis that his counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of the plea, failed to pursue an immigration-neutral plea deal, and had a conflict of interest. The superior court denied the motion, and Abergel appealed. We affirm the order.

After revoking probation, the trial court sentenced appellant Dorian Markaye Mayfield to the applicable three-year mid-term sentence for his underlying offense. Mayfield claims the trial court erred as a matter of law when, at sentencing on the underlying offense, the court considered as aggravating factors Mayfield’s conduct while on probation. Although the Attorney General concedes this error, the Attorney General contends it was harmless error. Because in addition to the factors challenged on appeal the trial court relied on appropriate factors, we agree with the Attorney General and conclude the trial court’s error was harmless and not a ground for reversal.

Gino Cervantes appeals from a judgment which sentences him to 29 years and four months in state prison for two counts of assault and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. Cervantes contends his convictions should be reversed owing to juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues remand is necessary for the trial court to exercise its newly-granted discretion under Senate Bill No. 620 (SB 620) to strike a firearm enhancement. We remand for the limited purpose of resentencing, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Spencer Nyako (defendant) went to trial on a single charge of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder. The jury found him not guilty of that charge but guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter and the lesser related offense of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. The jury also found true associated sentencing allegations: that the crimes were gang-related, that defendant personally used a firearm, and that he inflicted great bodily injury on victim Eugene Cooley (Cooley). We consider whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that the crimes were not committed in perfect self-defense and the jury’s true finding on the gang allegation. We also decide several sentencing-related issues, including whether defendant’s sentence could be enhanced for all three of the sentencing allegations the jury found true.

Stephen Winick appeals from a judgment against him following a jury trial. Winick sued Hilton Management, LLC (Hilton) and Sergio Bocci (collectively Respondents), the director of operations for the Beverly Hilton Hotel (the Hotel), for claims arising from Winick’s arrest while trying to attend the Golden Globe awards at the Hotel without a ticket or a pass. Bocci made a citizen’s arrest of Winick after consulting with a Beverly Hills police officer who informed Bocci that Winick had committed a criminal trespass. Winick was not convicted of any crime following the arrest; the district attorney ultimately dismissed the charges against him.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Oliver Dominguez of seven counts of aggravated sexual assault on a child as well as continuous sexual abuse and lewd act on a child. The victim was Dominguez’s girlfriend’s daughter, who was 11 years old when the abuse started and 15 when she finally told a nurse about it. Dominguez’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court dissuaded him from exercising his constitutional right to represent himself at trial by emphasizing too emphatically the risks and dangers of self-representation. We find no error and therefore affirm.

A jury convicted Mason Dubon and Luis Hernandez of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Penal Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and two counts of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). The jury found true the allegations that Dubon and Hernandez personally inflicted great bodily injury on Victor Cisneros (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that they committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(4)). Dubon and Hernandez challenge their convictions on several grounds, including that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the great bodily injury enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a), and that counsel for each of them provided ineffective assistance by failing to request an instruction on intoxication. Hernandez also argues substantial evidence does not support the true finding on the gang allegation.

At trial, defendant James Anthony Soria admitted shooting Victor Avila to death in a Los Angeles alley. Soria also admitted shooting at Victor Avila’s cousin Ralph Avila, who fled the alley without injury. The jury convicted Soria of murdering Victor Avila and of attempting to murder Ralph Avila.
Soria’s uncle Jose Cuellar was in the alley with Soria. The jury acquitted Cuellar of assaulting the Avilas with a baseball bat, but could not reach verdicts on other counts against Cuellar. Cuellar thus had nothing to appeal. Soria is the sole appellant.
The parties had conflicting accounts of the confrontation.
The prosecution maintained Soria and Cuellar had gone out hunting the Avilas, seeking to ambush and kill them. The prosecutor argued Soria and Cuellar planned for Cuellar to threaten and divert the Avilas with a baseball bat and thus enable “Soria to come up behind and start blasting.”

Petitioner is the mother of T.S., who is now about two and a half years old. In November 2017, the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 alleging that mother failed to provide regular care to T.S. and was unable to arrange for T.S.’s care. After offering six months of services, the Bureau recommended, and minor’s counsel agreed, that these services should be terminated because of mother’s failure to comply with her case plan, which the record indicates was due to her continued substance abuse. At a contested six-month review hearing, the court agreed with this recommendation for these reasons, terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for December 19, 2018. Mother petitions for this court to reverse the juvenile court’s findings and rulings and direct the court to continue services in an effort to reunify the family.