CA Unpub Decisions

This appeal involves a dispute between a commercial landlord, 12400 Stowe Drive, LP (Stowe), and its tenant, Cycle Express, LLC (Cycle). The parties' lease granted Cycle an option to renew the lease when it expired, with rent set at a discounted percentage of the property's fair market rental value. Cycle renewed the lease, but the parties disagreed about the property's fair market rental value and Cycle's rent obligations. Thus, Stowe brought this action against Cycle, requesting catch-up rent, accounting, and ejectment. Cycle filed cross-claims against Stowe, alleging that the roof of the property leaked water each time that it rained and, as a result, Stowe breached its obligations under the lease.

Appointed counsel for defendant Myron Hamish Jacobs 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.) We will order the trial court to correct an error we noted in the abstract of judgment. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

Defendant Maria Guadalupe Avalos, driving without a license, ran over the victim with her car then fled the scene. A jury found her guilty of three felonies and a misdemeanor. Sentenced to state prison, defendant appeals. She contends the trial court erred by: (1) not staying the sentence for hit and run under Penal Code section 654 and (2) imposing consecutive terms for her crimes. We conclude both claims lack merit and affirm the judgment.

Cross-complainants Rebecca Singh, Winning Hit, LLC (the company), and Ralie Singh and Stella Singh, individually and as trustees of the Ralie G. Singh and Stella Singh 1998 Family Revocable Trust, appeal from an order granting a special motion to strike their cross-complaint, which they filed against Lisa Mukai, individually and as trustee of the Chima Childrens (sic) Trust (the trust), and against the beneficiaries of the trust, Robby and Bobby Chima. We will affirm the order granting the special motion to strike the cross-complaint.

This appeal arises out of a nonjudicial foreclosure on a residence that commenced after appellant Stanley Peter Charles III (Charles) defaulted on his mortgage. During the litigation brought by Charles to prevent the foreclosure, he entered into a settlement agreement with respondents Caliber Home Loans, Inc., formerly known as Vericrest Financial Inc., U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2, LSF7 Bermuda NPL VI Trust, LSF7 NPL VI Bermuda Wells Trust, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee for LSF7 Bermuda NPL VI Trust, Vericrest Participation Loan Trust 2011-NPL2, and Summit Management Company, LLC (collectively Respondents).

Defendant Anthony Bodiford was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of possession of marijuana for the purpose of sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359; counts one & three.) Count one related to marijuana found in the apartment in which defendant resided with his son and his son’s girlfriend. Count three was related to marijuana found in a search of defendant’s car two days later, after defendant voluntarily traveled in it to the police department in an attempt to secure return of the marijuana taken from the apartment. The trial court sentenced defendant to 60 days in county jail and five years of formal probation.

The trial court revoked Richard William Kollin’s probation. He appeals, and we affirm.
The information in this case, filed June 1, 2015, charged Kollin with 15 felony counts of possessing firearms as a felon with one prior (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)); one misdemeanor count of possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)); one count of possession of shuriken (§ 22410); one misdemeanor count of possession of a switchblade knife in a motor vehicle (§ 21510, subd. (a)); and two counts of possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a)). The information alleged Kollin committed the offenses on or about May 2, 2015. Kollin pleaded not guilty.

R.R. (father) challenges an order of the juvenile court declaring his daughter, N.B., a dependent child pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). Father contends there is no evidence he suffers from a mental illness or that his mental illness and substance abuse put N.B. at substantial risk of serious physical harm. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the trial court’s jurisdictional findings are supported by substantial evidence, and thus we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Gildardo Salazar was convicted of second degree murder with a firearm enhancement, and sentenced to 40 years to life in prison. He contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence, and the matter must be remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h). We affirm Salazar’s conviction, but vacate his sentence and remand the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion and consider whether to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements.

Because Skiler Eli Gascon (Gascon) raises only a discrete sentencing issue on appeal, the facts underlying his crimes are not relevant. The relevant facts are that in January 2008, an information alleged against Gascon four counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) as to all counts. On September 15, 2008, the trial court sentenced him to the midterm of three years on count 1 plus 10 years for the weapon enhancement. As to counts 2, 3, and 4, the court sentenced him to one year (one-third the midterm of three years) plus three years four months (one-third of 10 years) on the weapon enhancements on each of those counts consecutively. Although the total sentence therefore was 26 years (3 + 10 + 13), the court misstated that the “[t]otal is 23 years.” The abstract of judgment also showed the total sentence to be 23 years, and it indicated the court had imposed two years four months on the weapon enhancements as to counts 2, 3, a

Defendant Anucha Suwannangkul appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. The jury found defendant guilty of two counts of violating Penal Code section 289, subdivision (a)(1)(A), sexual penetration by a foreign object committed against two victims. Defendant received an aggregate sentence of nine years.
Defendant argues insufficient evidence supported the verdict as to Count 1. Defendant also contends he was denied due process because of prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, defendant asserts he was denied a competent interpreter. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Frank E. Boyd participated in a scheme masterminded by his former girlfriend, Tresa Abdel-Razek, to defraud a taxpayer-funded child care reimbursement program. Boyd was convicted of conspiracy, grand theft, and perjury by declaration. Sentenced to seven years in prison, Boyd appeals, contending the trial court prejudicially erred by excluding evidence. We affirm the judgment.

Carlos Martin is a sworn peace officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (Department or LAPD). The Department selected Martin to participate in its Air Support Division (ASD) command training program and placed him in the bonus position of Police Officer II+6 while he trained to become an LAPD helicopter pilot. After extending Martin’s training time to address recurring shortcomings, the Department deselected him from the bonus position primarily due to deficiencies in aeronautical decision making and situational awareness. Martin challenged his deselection in an administrative appeal. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer upheld the Department’s decision.

Plaintiff suffered personal injuries when an uninsured motorist rear-ended his car at a red light. After presenting a coverage claim to his insurer, Defendant Star Insurance Company, Plaintiff made a demand for arbitration under the uninsured motorist provision of his policy. At arbitration, Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of his $1,000,000 policy limit. The arbitrator awarded Plaintiff $70,000 on the claim. Plaintiff petitioned the superior court to vacate the arbitration award on the ground that Star engaged in misconduct to procure it. The court denied the petition, and Star paid the arbitration award in full.
Following the ruling on his petition to vacate the arbitration award, Plaintiff filed this action, alleging Star breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by unreasonably withholding policy benefits.