CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Jose Giron appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandate following his discharge from Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (the Department). On appeal, Giron contends (1) Respondent Civil Service Commission of the County of Los Angeles (the Commission) failed to “bridge the analytical gap” between the raw evidence and its ultimate decision discharging his employment, and (2) the penalty of discharge was unwarranted. We conclude the Commission rendered sufficient findings for administrative mandate review and acted within its discretion in selecting discharge as a penalty for Giron’s misconduct.

Heidi Gonggryp (Gonggryp) sued the manufacturer (Bayerishe Motoren Werke AG) and distributor (BMW of North America LLC) (collectively, BMW) of her automobile for injuries allegedly arising out of a defective seatbelt. Before trial, the trial court ruled that Dr. Daniel Lu (Lu), Gonggryp’s neurosurgeon and one of her retained experts, could not testify that her car’s seatbelt was defective and the cause of her alleged injuries. In addition, the court precluded Lu from offering any opinions based on biomechanics or occupant kinematics. At trial, the jury rendered a unanimous verdict that the seatbelt was not defective.

Plaintiff and appellant Richard V. Forrest appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Hawaiian Insurance & Guaranty Company (Hawaiian). Forrest was involved in a car accident with Hawaiian’s alleged insured, William Olivas. Hawaiian refused to defend Olivas on the basis that his monthly auto liability insurance policy lapsed on January 10, 2004—one day before the accident occurred. After a default judgment was entered in a separate case against Olivas in Forrest’s favor, Olivas assigned Forrest his rights as insured against Hawaiian. Forrest then filed this suit against Hawaiian and others.

Defendant Manuel Antonio Godinez appeals a judgment entered after the trial court found him in violation of his probation and imposed a three-year jail term. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has been apprised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

This case has twice been before us. In defendant’s first appeal (People v. Van Dusen (Sept. 15, 2016, A142665) [nonpub. opn.]), we affirmed her conviction of felony animal cruelty (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (b)). In defendant’s second set of appeals (People v. Van Dusen (April 18, 2017, A145929, A147201) [nonpub. opn.]), we affirmed restitution orders.

In 2013, a jury convicted appellant Darvelle B. Little of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (b), 211) and found true various sentencing enhancement allegations, including that during the robbery, Little personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (firearm enhancement) (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). In 2013, the trial court sentenced Little to 30 years to life in state prison, consisting of the upper term of five years for the robbery, and 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. Little appealed, claiming the court erred by declining to hold a hearing on his second People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) motion. We agreed and remanded the matter to the trial court to conduct a Marsden hearing. (People v. Little (Jan. 12, 2016, A140502) [nonpub. opn.].)

Jesus Montiel appeals from a postjudgment order granting monetary, issue, and evidentiary sanctions against him and his attorney for failure to comply with court orders compelling the production of documents sought pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. Shortly after judgment was entered against Montiel in the underlying litigation, he recorded a deed of trust in favor of his attorney, Thomas Smurro, against a commercial building Montiel owned. The deed of trust referenced an underlying promissory note to Smurro for $850,000. Creditors subsequently served an order for a debtor’s examination on Montiel, accompanied by a subpoena duces tecum seeking, among other things, the promissory note and related documents.

Appellant Eugene Schneider was the attorney for Addie Thompson, administrator of the estate of Gisteen Anderson, in a probate proceeding filed in 1992. After Schneider withdrew as counsel for Thompson, the trial court dismissed the probate petition. Seven years later, a different personal representative filed a new petition in probate court seeking to administer the same estate. When Schneider learned of the new proceeding, he objected to the final accounting, asserting entitlement to a portion of the statutory compensation as attorney for the prior personal representative. At the hearing on final distribution of the assets of the estate, the trial court determined Schneider lacked standing to pursue a claim for fees based on the dismissal of the first probate proceeding. We conclude the trial court erred, and reverse.

After monitoring its industrial wastewater for years, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) revoked the wastewater discharge permit of appellant E-D Coat, Inc. (E-D Coat) in June 2012, and later denied E-D Coat a zero wastewater discharge permit, because EBMUD’s sewer water testing showed E-D Coat was discharging zinc-contaminated wastewater into Oakland’s sewer system. E-D Coat denied that allegation and produced evidence that it had changed its metal plating process to use recycled water and no longer discharged any wastewater into the sewers. The administrative hearings became largely a battle of experts, and E-D Coat lost. It then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate in superior court (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), but its petition was denied.

After his motion to suppress was denied, and pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Ricardo Herrera pled no contest to two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale; two counts of transporting methamphetamine for sale; and evading a peace officer. He also admitted several enhancements. At sentencing, an eight-year prison term was imposed. Herrera appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.

Defendant Keshawn Thomas appeals from convictions after a jury trial for attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 1), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count 2), and attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211; count 3). The jury found true the following additional allegations: defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a); count 1); defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (d); counts 1 & 3); and defendant personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a); count 2). On April 13, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison for five years for attempted murder plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 16 months on count 3 plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, but made these sentences concurrent to count 1. The court imposed a term of three years on count 2, staying the sentence pursuant to sec

Defendant Albert Henry King was convicted by jury of attempted robbery, aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. This appeal involves allegations of racial discrimination during the jury selection process. There are also sentencing issues concerning the applicability of Penal Code section 654 and Senate Bill No. 620 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 620). Additional claims of insufficient evidence with regard to certain firearm offenses and gang findings are conceded by the People. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Petitioner J.B. (Mother) seeks extraordinary writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of the juvenile court’s orders made at the 12-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (f)), terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan for her 19-month-old son F.B. Mother contends there was insubstantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that she received reasonable reunification services because she was not given sufficient time to complete the additional services added at the contested six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)). She further contends her due process rights were violated when the Riverside County Department of Social Services (DPSS) lodged additional evidence one day before the contested 12-month review hearing. We reject these contentions and deny the petition.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant David Joseph Esparza pled guilty to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and admitted the allegation that he was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). In accordance with the agreement, the court sentenced him to two years in state prison, plus one year on the firearm enhancement. The court also imposed various fees and fines.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, along with a request for certificate of probable cause, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, he was not granted credits for the time he previously spent on probation, and he was not told that he would owe restitution. The court granted the request. We affirm.