CA Unpub Decisions

In 2012, appellants Hai and Jen Huang made a claim under their homeowners insurance policy with defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm) related to physical damage to their home. Although the Huangs had made similar claims in both 2008 and 2010, they asserted the damage at issue in their 2012 claim was caused by demolition work at a neighbor’s home. In particular, the Huangs stated the demolition caused intense vibrations that in turn damaged their home. After investigating their claim, State Farm concluded the damage was preexisting and not caused by the demolition vibrations. Instead, as it had concluded in investigating earlier claims, State Farm believed the damage was caused by long term settlement of the soil and earth beneath the home, which type of damage was excluded under the Huangs’ insurance policy.

Rosalba Cruz Moran appeals her conviction of the first degree murder of her newborn, biological son. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189.) She was sentenced by the trial court to a term of 25 years to life in state prison. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it admitted the statements she made to law enforcement because she received incomplete and confusing Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda)) warnings and did not knowingly and intelligently waive her right against self incrimination. Appellant further contends there is no substantial evidence she acted with premeditation and deliberation. Finally, she requests a limited sentencing remand, consistent with People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). Respondent concedes the final point. We remand for that purpose and affirm in all other respects.

The local school board for the City of Eureka terminated the employment of middle school teacher Timothy Regan because he refused to perform certain tasks associated with a special education student caseload. Regan then sought review of the school board’s decision in superior court by petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The superior court overturned the school board’s decision, and the school board now appeals.
We affirm the judgment. It may very well be that the school board had legal cause to dismiss Regan. We are unable to say, however, because the school board has forfeited its appellate arguments and/or presented them in such a cursory fashion that it has failed to meet its burden on appeal of demonstrating reversible error.

M.M. appeals from an order designating her a ward of the juvenile court and placing her on probation. Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.

This is an appeal from a sentencing in juvenile court. Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in denying him informal supervision pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2. He also contends a condition of probation, namely an electronic search condition, was unconstitutional in this instance. We find no error in the denial of informal supervision but remand the condition permitting search of electronic items in appellant’s possession. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment.

In this appeal, counsel for appellant has filed a declaration stating he has reviewed the record in this case and decided to file a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. He has written appellant and advised him of this conclusion. Counsel told appellant he may file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues Vidor believes need to be addressed. Vidor has filed a supplemental brief in the case, addressing his remorse regarding his conduct and the desire to receive another opportunity to demonstrate his responsibility. We have reviewed the record and conclude the judgment should be affirmed. This is a timely appeal.

Defendant Dahesi Nigel Roark was convicted of first degree residential robbery and found to have multiple prior serious or violent felony convictions. Almost a year after trial but before sentencing, defense counsel expressed doubt as to Roark’s competence “moving forward,” and the trial court ordered two psychological evaluations. At a subsequent hearing on the matter, defense counsel submitted the issue of competence on the psychologists’ reports, and the trial court found Roark competent. Roark was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison.

This is the second round of appeals in litigation over a plan to construct a housing development on the Pine Meadow Golf Course in Martinez. In Dean v. Friends of Pine Meadow (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 91 (Dean I), Christine Dean, DeNova Homes, Inc., and Civic Martinez, LLC (collectively, plaintiffs) appealed an order granting a special motion to strike their defamation complaint against Friends of Pine Meadow and several individuals (collectively, defendants), pursuant to section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (section 425.16 or the anti-SLAPP law). This court affirmed that order, rejecting plaintiffs’ contention that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply because their claims against defendants arose out of commercial speech.

Defendants agreed to sell a parcel of commercial real property to plaintiffs, who own an adjoining parcel. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found that “a binding agreement was reached in April 2014”; that “[p]laintiffs timely performed under the contract”; and “[d]efendants breached the agreement by refusing to convey . . . when plaintiffs tendered performance.” The court entered a judgment directing defendants to specifically perform the contract, and thereafter made an order awarding plaintiffs contractual attorney fees in the sum of $658,499.
Defendants did not appeal, but plaintiffs did. They contend the court erred in not awarding “incidental damages” for the period defendants did not perform, and that the court abused its discretion in not awarding the full amount of their attorney fee request. Claiming the appeals are frivolous, defendants ask for sanctions. We address each claim separately.

The City of Arcata (City) issued a call for bids to construct a portion of a trail network. Having determined that the lowest cost bid was nonresponsive because it did not comply with instructions requiring a non-collusion affidavit, the City awarded the bid to the second lowest cost bidder, McCullough Construction, Inc. (McCullough). Mercer Fraser Company (Appellant), which submitted the fourth lowest cost bid, filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court challenging the award, and now appeals the denial of the petition, arguing that the award must be overturned and the project rebid. Appellant’s opening brief, filed in March 2018, does not mention that the construction project was completed in November 2017. We agree with the City that we cannot grant Appellant any effectual relief, and therefore we shall dismiss the appeal as moot.

David C. Rose was found guilty by a jury of two counts of making criminal threats (counts 19 and 20) under Penal Code section 422, subdivision (a), as well as additional counts of making criminal threats and other crimes. He now appeals from his conviction of those two counts, claiming insufficiency of the evidence. We find both counts are supported by substantial evidence and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Hemlata G. Vyas brought this action to quiet title concerning a parcel of property she owns in San Francisco encumbered by deeds of trust securing three business-related loans that she contends have been fully satisfied and discharged. The superior court ruled against her after a bench trial, finding the loans have not been fully paid and declining for that reason to extinguish the cloud on her title. She now appeals the judgment, along with a post-judgment award of approximately $47,000 in attorney fees. We affirm both.

Joshua Bingham appeals his convictions for two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts one and two), two counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited misdemeanant (§ 29805, subd. (a)(1); counts four and five), and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364; count six). The evidence against Bingham was seized pursuant to a search warrant based on information furnished by confidential informants and police surveillance of a known narcotics dealer. Bingham contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying his motion to unseal, quash, and traverse the search warrant, and by failing to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. In the alternative, Bingham contends his felon in possession of a firearm convictions must be reversed on equal protection grounds. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendants Damon Davis and Dawn Dedrick of second degree burglary of a vehicle and possession of burglary tools. On appeal, they contend that insufficient evidence supports the burglary convictions, the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during closing argument, and the trial court erred by ordering them to pay certain fines and fees, including a civil assessment of $500 for attorney fees. We affirm, except we strike a $25 fee imposed on both defendants and remand for the court to address other minor fee- and fine-related issues.