CA Unpub Decisions

Max Martinez appeals from a trial court judgment that, among other things, awarded his former wife Maria Rodriguez spousal support and divided the couple’s community property. Martinez argues the trial court erred by ordering him to pay Rodriguez monthly spousal support he cannot afford to pay and by making the award retroactive. Martinez also contends substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that Rodriguez’s health declined since the couple’s separation or the court’s valuation of certain community assets.
Martinez forfeited his contentions regarding retroactive support payments and Rodriguez’s health because he submitted an incomplete record on appeal that precludes meaningful review. Martinez also forfeited his arguments regarding the valuation of certain items of community property because he did not make those arguments in the trial court.

John Herzog filed a creditor’s claim in the proceeding to probate the estate of his father, Robert T. Herzog. The probate court ruled Joy Herzog Caldwell, John’s sister and the executor of Robert’s estate, had properly denied the claim in accordance with Probate Code section 9250 and John’s failure to file an action within 90 days of receiving notice of that rejection, as required by section 9353, barred any creditor’s action he might otherwise have against the estate. On appeal John contends the court erred in barring his claim because section 9353’s 90-day limitations period is triggered by the executor’s formal rejection of a creditor’s claim in compliance with section 9250 and Caldwell has still not satisfied that section’s requirements. We affirm.

Rayanna Erika Lopez appeals a judgment following her conviction, after a jury trial, of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69), a felony. We conclude, among other things, that 1) the police officer acted lawfully under section 69; 2) the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of a 911 call; 3) the trial court properly instructed the jury with CALCRIM Nos. 3470, 3471 and 3472; and 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling there was no material to be disclosed from a police officer’s

A jury convicted Stewart Maua Teofilo of first degree murder with a deadly weapon of Maurice Howard. We conclude insufficient evidence supported the jury finding that Teofilo killed Howard with premeditation and deliberation. We modify the judgment to reduce his conviction to second degree murder, and modify his sentence to an indeterminate 16-years-to-life term.

Appellant Sabrina Ballard-Grajada appeals from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial and committing her to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) pursuant to Penal Code section 1370. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will assume, without deciding, that Wende procedures are available in this appeal. Appellate counsel advised appellant of her right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue she believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

Appellant Willie Chadwick appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. After the jury issued its verdicts but before sentencing, appellant waived his right to appeal as part of a negotiated disposition in this and several other cases. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

Raul Gutierrez challenges a probation condition requiring him to “maintain full-time employment and/or education or vocational training as directed.” He contends the condition is unconstitutionally vague. We affirm.

Lake County resident Marlin Briggs died, with his primary assets consisting of several parcels of real property, two of which were in Florida. Following his appointment as special administrator, respondent Tom Cariveau hired a Florida law firm to open an ancillary probate proceeding there, a proceeding that appellant Gregory Hobbs had for months insisted on—indeed going so far as to file a petition seeking such appointment. And Cariveau paid the firm for its services, which were of substantial benefit to the estate.
Cariveau filed a final accounting, to which Hobbs filed objections. The Lake County Probate Court held a two-day hearing, at the conclusion of which it approved the accounting, finding among other things that it “was necessary and proper” for Cariveau to retain Florida counsel. Hobbs appeals, asserting primarily that the payments to Florida counsel were made without court order, and thus Cariveau should be surcharged for such payments. Hobbs also objects to a $

Appellant Steven Mitchell appeals from a judgment following his guilty pleas to auto burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and misdemeanor participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

Corbin McDevon contends the San Francisco Superior Court lost jurisdiction to revoke his mandatory supervision and order him to serve the remainder of his sentence in county jail pursuant to the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act) because, he maintains, it had failed to act on a request for speedy sentencing he filed while incarcerated for a subsequent offense in San Mateo County. The statutory provisions McDevon invokes do not apply to mandatory supervision under the Realignment Act, so we affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Matt Mirabella (Mirabella) appeals from the trial court’s judgment following its order sustaining, without leave to amend, a demurrer filed by defendant and respondent Cristina Holloway (Holloway). We reverse.

Defendant Cedric Dashun Hunt and a cohort were arrested after being found in a stolen vehicle with a set of shaved keys for various makes and models of cars and drug paraphernalia. Defendant pleaded no contest to unlawful receipt of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise set forth) and admitted a prior conviction for the same offense (§ 666.5, subd. (a) in exchange for a stipulated three-year split local prison sentence and dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. The court sentenced defendant to one year in county jail and two years on mandatory supervision.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in ordering him to pay a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) as conditions of his mandatory supervision.

Defendant Dwayne Allen Eichler’s petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126 is before this court a second time. In his first appeal, we found the trial court’s denial of his resentencing petition was an abuse of discretion because the trial court mistakenly believed defendant would not be subject to postrelease community supervision (PRCS) if the resentencing petition was granted. We remanded the case for the trial court to consider the petition in light of our opinion identifying this error.
On remand, the trial court reaffirmed its original denial. Defendant appeals from the denial, contending the court abused its discretion by relying on the probation officer’s testimony that he presented as a high risk on PRCS to compel a finding that resentencing presented an unreasonable risk to public safety. We shall affirm.

Defendant Marietta Dabanian appeals from the trial court’s order denying her request to hold a hearing on modifying a restitution order issued against her over 10 years before the denial. She contends the order deprived her of due process and her statutory right to a hearing. We shall vacate the order denying her motion for a hearing and remand for a hearing to determine the amount the restitution should be offset for the funds defendant spent on caring for her victim in her time of need.