CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Shaun Reginald Shaw and William C. had what is perhaps most politely characterized as a misunderstanding regarding storage of Shaw's cars on William's property. William had one of the cars removed. That day or the next, he was in his kitchen cooking when Shaw burst through his front door, swinging a hatchet and threatening, " 'Where's my mother fucking cars? I'm going to kill your ass.' " He cut William's lip with the hatchet. Shaw continued to pursue William through the home, punching him and again verbally threatening his life if the cars were not returned. Based on that encounter, Shaw was convicted by jury of first degree residential burglary with a nonaccomplice present (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (c)(21), count 1), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and making a criminal threat (§ 422, count 3).

This is an appeal from a need-based pendente lite award of attorney fees to be paid by Jennifer Moores (Mother) to Karl Eckstine (Father). The parties do not dispute that Mother has substantially more financial resources than Father. Rather, the discord related to this award turns primarily on whether the fees incurred and anticipated by Father are reasonably necessary to the litigation, in which a vehement child custody battle predominates. While Mother challenges the award on multiple individual grounds, all center on whether Father's attorney fees are inflated because he has overlitigated the case. This is an issue that the experienced trial judge, who presided over this matter almost since its inception, was uniquely qualified to resolve. Although the award made by the judge is sizeable, it is sufficiently supported by the evidence before the court both in light of the parties' submissions and the court's longstanding experience with the case. Accordingly, we aff

A jury convicted Domingo Diego Rojas of 13 counts of committing lewd acts upon a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subds. (a) & (c)(1).) As to five of the counts, the jury also found true the allegation that he committed the offenses against multiple victims. (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (c)(8), & (e)(4).) The jury also found that Rojas had substantial sexual contact with a victim under 14 years of age (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) and was convicted of the same offense against multiple victims (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(7)), rendering Rojas ineligible for probation. The trial court sentenced Rojas to state prison for an indeterminate term of 45 years to life, plus a determinate term of 14 years, eight months.

This is an appeal in a certified wage and hour class action following a judgment after a bench trial in favor of defendants Certified Tire and Services Centers, Inc. (Certified Tire) and Barrett Business Services. Inc. (collectively defendants). Plaintiffs contend that Certified Tire violated the applicable minimum wage and rest period requirements by implementing a compensation program, which guaranteed its automotive technicians a specific hourly wage above the minimum wage for all hours worked during each pay period but also gave them the possibility of earning a higher hourly wage for all hours worked during each pay period based on certain productivity measures.
As we will explain, we conclude that the plaintiffs' arguments lack merit, and we accordingly affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Khanh Quoc Le asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Our review of the record discloses clerical errors in the abstract of judgment that must be corrected. We will affirm the judgment and direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Gary Steven Boman asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Appointed counsel for defendant Christian Tommis Jacobson asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

J.N. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights over L.N. and C.P. (the minors). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) L.P., the father of C.P., filed a separate appeal, and joins in mother’s contentions on appeal as they pertain to C.P. C.S. is the alleged father of L.N. and is not a party to these proceedings. Mother and father L.P. (collectively parents) contend (1) the juvenile court erred in finding the minors adoptable, and mother contends (2) the Sutter County Health and Human Services Department (Department) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.).
Agreeing with the latter contention, we will conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights as to minor L.N. and remand for limited ICWA proceedings. In all other respects, we will affirm the orders.

In Shasta County Superior Court case No. 16F6855 (case No. 855), a jury found defendant Shaun Michael Espinoza guilty of second degree robbery. Defendant admitted he served a prior prison term and violated his probation in Shasta County Superior Court case No. 15F1017 (case No. 017). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years eight months in state prison.
On appeal, defendant does not challenge the revocation of his probation in case No. 017. Instead, he contends his conviction in case No. 855 should be reversed because the trial court erred in allowing him to be impeached by his seven prior felony convictions. Defendant also contends the abstract of judgment and minute order must be corrected to remove fines not imposed orally by the court.
We reject defendant’s claims and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Brook Thomas Bonner challenges his burglary conviction (Pen. Code, § 459), arguing the trial court erred in excluding testimony from his grandparents that they had previously seen him act paranoid and worry about nonexistent dangers. Defendant also argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the defense of mistake of fact requires that a defendant’s belief in the mistaken fact be reasonable. We will affirm.

After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, first by a magistrate at a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code section 1538.5, and then by the superior court on a section 995 motion, defendant Robert Jason Farley pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). Sentenced to state prison, defendant contends that the officer’s pat-down search was not supported by reasonable cause. We affirm.

The Central Coast Region is one of the great agricultural regions of California. Unfortunately, waste discharges from irrigated agricultural operations, particularly from the use of fertilizers and pesticides, have impaired the quality of both surface water and groundwater in the region. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and nine regional boards are responsible for regulating waste discharges to protect water quality. (Wat. Code, § 13263.) Discharge requirements may be waived “if the state board or a regional board determines . . . that the waiver is consistent with any applicable state or regional water quality control plan and is in the public interest.” (§ 13269, subd. (a).)

Defendant James Lee Inabnit entered guilty pleas in four separate matters and was sentenced to an aggregate term of seven years four months in state prison. Several months later, defendant petitioned the trial court for reduction and resentencing in all four cases pursuant to Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18) passed by California voters weeks after he was sentenced. The court granted his petition in two of the cases, but denied his petition as to the remaining two, concluding section 1170.18 did not apply to those cases. The court resentenced defendant to the previously imposed term of seven years four months consistent with the plea bargain.

Plaintiff Jefferson G. Smith bought real property in a credit sale transaction promising to pay sellers Mov Hok Tang and Lynn Muy Tang over time. Plaintiff was unable to pay and lost the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure. He sued the sellers for usury, rescission of the trustee’s sale, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair business practices -- all based on plaintiff’s contention that a modification of the credit sale agreement was a “forbearance” subjecting the transaction to (and violating) usury laws proscribing interest rates exceeding specified limits. (Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1; Civ. Code, §§ 1916.12-1 to 1916.12-5.) Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of the sellers contending triable issues require reversal. We affirm the judgment.