CA Unpub Decisions

At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court granted nonoffending presumed father, S.P, Sr., sole physical custody of his two children, J.P. and S.P., and terminated jurisdiction as to them. M.R. (mother) appeals. We affirm.

Joseph Ra appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a $67,344.22 default judgment in favor of Joseph C. LaPlant. Ra contends that: (1) “[t]he trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the substance of [his] argument” that an extrinsic mistake deprived him of a fair hearing on the merits of his defense; and (2) the notice of the default proceedings was not properly served. We conclude that the court properly denied the motion to vacate.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Jesse Alderete of possession of a controlled substance while armed, possession of a firearm by a felon, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The same jury convicted defendant and appellant Richard Griego of possession for sale of a controlled substance. Alderete contends the prosecutor committed Doyle error and the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte give an instruction on unanimity. Griego contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel and improper gang evidence was presented to the jury. He also urges us to strike an enhancement for a prior drug conviction. We affirm Alderete’s judgment. However, we agree Griego received ineffective assistance of counsel and reverse the judgment on that basis.

Briand Williams appeals from an order denying his motion to discharge his retained attorney during a sentencing hearing, contending the trial court failed meaningfully to consider the motion and abused its discretion in denying it. We affirm the order. Williams also challenges in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus the calculation of his good conduct credits. We deny the petition.

A husband and wife in a dissolution action bifurcated the issue of child custody, and set that issue for trial. Nearly two months before the date set for trial, husband’s attorney told him that she was filing an ex parte motion asking to be relieved as counsel. The trial court granted the motion 32 days before the trial date. On the Friday before the Monday trial date, husband moved to continue the trial. The trial court heard the motion on the morning of trial, and denied it. The matter proceeded to trial, and the trial court found that husband had committed domestic violence against wife in the form of emotional abuse, awarded wife sole legal custody of the couple’s two children, and ordered father to complete a 52-week domestic violence class and attend preteen counseling. On appeal, husband argues that the trial court erred in (1) denying him a continuance, and (2) ordering him to complete a 52-week domestic violence class and attend counseling. We conclude that the tria

This lawsuit has several distinct components. The first involves voluminous and complex billing issues that arose after plaintiffs sold their skilled nursing facility to defendants; these issues were the subject of a special reference. The trial court eventually adopted the special master’s “Determinations and Findings” in plaintiffs’ favor, but declined to hold any hearings before doing so. The second aspect concerns attorney fees incurred by plaintiffs to ensure a promissory note, personally guaranteed by their principals, did not go into default. Over defendants’ objections the trial court awarded plaintiffs these attorney fees as damages. Postjudgment, plaintiffs were awarded prevailing party attorney fees and costs. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand with directions.

Danny Lockett appeals following his guilty plea to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, causing injury to another while driving a vehicle while intoxicated and failing to stop and report at the scene of an accident causing death. His 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 have reviewed the record and conclude there are no issues requiring further review. We affirm.

Lloyd Lewis challenges the constitutionality of two conditions placed on his mandatory supervision imposed as part of a split sentence after the court revoked his probation. His contention that the conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad are meritless, so we affirm.

After 16 years of marriage, Catherine Sweeney and Lee Smith separated, and a year later she filed a petition for dissolution. Though Smith was served with process, he failed to respond, and months later Sweeney sought the entry of default and a default judgment. The default judgment resolved issues of support (it awarded none) and divided certain community assets, but reserved jurisdiction to divide the family home, which Smith had continued to occupy. Smith was served with those papers, too, but again took no action.
Fast forward three years, when Sweeney, having tried to persuade Smith to buy her interest to no avail, filed a request for an order to sell the family home. This got Smith’s attention, and he finally retained counsel and appeared in the case for the first time. He contested and sought to delay either buying out Sweeney’s interest in the house or putting the house on the market so the proceeds could be divided. That issue, having been reserved, was now ripe a

Around 4:30 p.m. on the afternoon of March 20, 2015, Ron Arrasmith left defendant Christopher McNatt at his trailer in Sonoma, telling him to keep an eye on the place. At some point later that evening, Ron Sauvageau arrived at the trailer looking for Arrasmith, and ended up struggling with McNatt. Shortly after 11:00 p.m., McNatt dumped a large barrel containing Sauvageau’s body at Sonoma City Hall. After he
drove away, he was pulled over and arrested for being under the influence of methamphetamine. A jury ultimately found McNatt guilty of second degree murder.
On appeal, he argues that the statement he gave after his arrest was involuntary and thus admitted in violation of his right to due process, and that the prosecution’s late disclosure of a statement Arrasmith gave the police requires reversal of his conviction. We affirm.

This appeal results from a deputy clerk’s repeated failure to serve plaintiff’s counsel at the mailing address in the court’s record. The trial court issued a proposed statement of decision and proposed judgment, which the clerk mailed to plaintiff’s counsel’s old address and—as a result—he did not receive them. The court, then, erroneously, filed a statement of decision and notice of entry of judgment, which were again mailed to the wrong address, and were issued without giving plaintiff the statutorily-required time to object to the proposed statement and judgment. The court acknowledged the court’s errors and granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the statement of decision and judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). Appellants Abbas Mash (Mash) and Niki S. Inc. (collectively, appellants) appeal from the trial court’s order. Plaintiff contends the order is not appealable. We conclude that the order is appealable and affirm i

In the course of a domestic dispute, defendant Lorenzo Rodriguez threatened to kill several people, grabbed a knife, and ran toward a teenager with the knife, not stopping until after the teenager had shot him multiple times. After a court trial, Rodriguez was found guilty of attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of criminal threats, and the trial court sentenced him to nine years and four months in prison. On appeal, his sole contention is that the conviction for attempted murder lacks substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.

Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (FC Surety) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court denied its motion to vacate the forfeiture of a $75,000 bond. FC Surety contends it was entitled to relief under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (c)(3), which requires the court to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail if, outside the county where the case is located, the defendant (1) is surrendered to custody by the bail or (2) is arrested in the underlying case. FC Surety also contends the San Francisco City Attorney lacked standing to object to the motion to vacate forfeiture because it was not “the prosecuting agency” on the case. We reject the contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Yeechang Lee wishes to be relieved of an over half-million-dollar mortgage solely because of a scrivener’s error contained in a reconveyance recorded in 2008. Upon discovering the error in 2014, CitiMortgage, Inc. (CitiMortgage) sued Lee for cancellation of the erroneous reconveyance and a declaratory judgment to the same effect. Lee asserted CitiMortgage’s action was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court disagreed, and entered judgment in favor of CitiMortgage. The judgment is legally correct and supported by substantial evidence, so we affirm.