CA Unpub Decisions

Retired attorney William H. Stephens appeals in propria persona from a probate court order denying his claim against the conservatorship estate of Mary Catherine Farley. We affirm.

G.C. (son) was nine years old when he and his two year old half sister S.M. (daughter) were removed from the custody of J.M. (mother) and M.M. (stepfather) following stepfather’s arrest due to his participation in the production and trading of child pornography involving son and daughter. Mother was detained for questioning but not charged in that case. She appeals from the juvenile court’s January 4, 2018 order bypassing reunification services for her as to son.

Appellant was sentenced to 60 years to life in prison for sexually abusing multiple children. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred by restricting his right of cross-examination, limiting the admissibility of a statement attributed to one of the victims, and permitting the jury to draw a negative inference from his failure to explain adverse evidence. He also contends the prosecutor misstated the burden of proof in closing argument, he was denied access to subpoenaed records that may have been relevant to his defense, and cumulative error compels reversal. Finding no basis to reverse, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Arvin Wijay performed consulting services for defendant Ten-X, LLC (Ten-X, formerly known as Auction.com), while he was the chief executive officer (CEO) of Retreat Capital Management, Inc. (Retreat). Ten-X refused to pay Wijay for his consulting services, so he sued Ten-X. The jury awarded Wijay $5,702,364 in damages on his contract and quantum meruit causes of action, and the court awarded him $1,460,465 in prejudgment interest.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in sentencing appellant Lee Hoang Robinson to consecutive prison terms on his convictions for sexual battery by fraud. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Matthew Benjamin Johnson, of the first degree murder of Ronald Bridges and found defendant personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, in the commission of the murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant admitted two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and was sentenced to 28 years to life in prison.

A jury found Darron Marquis Daniels guilty of one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), and two counts of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and made true findings on firearm-use allegations. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), & (d).) The trial court sentenced Daniels to prison for an indeterminate term of 40 years to life, and a determinate term of 38 years.

Defendant Joseph Alex Garza appeals from a conviction after a jury found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Garza shot the victim, a member of a rival gang, after Garza spotted the victim and some friends walking down Garza's street, toward his residence.
On appeal, Garza raises two claims. First, he challenges the trial court's admission of the testimony of a gang expert who was called by the prosecutor during the prosecution's case-in-chief. Garza contends that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to present the testimony of a gang expert because there was no gang offense charged and no gang enhancement alleged. He asserts that the gang expert's testimony was cumulative and unduly prejudicial, and therefore, should have been excluded.

Kevin Tran unlawfully accessed (hacked) 151 student accounts at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) during a two-year period. UCSD undertook an extensive and complex investigation in order to identify the perpetrator and to repair damage caused by his actions. Tran pleaded guilty and on this appeal, he challenges the order requiring him to pay $30,590 to UCSD in restitution. We will find the trial court's restitution order was proper and is supported by substantial evidence. We will therefore affirm the judgment.

On August 14, 2017, Sean L. and two friends entered a locked residence belonging to Sean's cousin (victim). They rummaged through the house and eventually entered a detached garage where the victim's parents stay on weekends.
The victim arrived home as the garage was being rummaged through. Sean and his companions ran away. A neighbor got in his truck and chased them down. When a police officer questioned Sean, he gave the officer a false address and lied about his knowledge of the victim's home.

A jury found defendant Joseph Marvin Braschler guilty of one count of stalking his former girlfriend with a court order in place (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)) and one count of making a criminal threat against the same victim (§ 422). The trial court sentenced Braschler to the upper term of four years on count 1, and the upper term of three years, stayed pursuant to section 654, on count 2. The court also entered a criminal violence restraining order enjoining Braschler from having any contact with the victim and her husband for a period of three years.

A jury convicted Michael Scott Shook of two counts of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422). He admitted allegations that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction that qualified as a strike (§§ 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced Shook to a total prison term of seven years eight months, consisting of 32 months (double the 16-month low term) on count 1, a concurrent 32-month term on count 2, and five years for his prior serious felony conviction. Shook contends insufficient evidence supports his criminal threat convictions in that there was no evidence his threat actually caused the victims to be in sustained fear for their own safety. He further contends the trial court prejudicially erred by refusing his request to instruct the jury on self-defense, an affirmative defense to the criminal threat charges, because substantial evidence warranted the instruction. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Macjhay Yagao appeals an order denying his motion under recently enacted Penal Code section 1473.7 to vacate his aggravated felony conviction for transportation of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). Yagao contends the trial court's denial of his motion was error because his trial counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and he was prejudiced by the deficiency. We agree and, therefore, reverse the order.

Axis Insurance Company (Axis) appeals a summary judgment in favor of Omni Hotels Management Corporation (Omni) on Axis's complaint for damages caused by a fire that originated on a golf course on Omni's property and spread to properties insured by Axis. Axis contends we must reverse the judgment because there are triable issues of material fact as to whether Omni caused the fire and as to whether Omni owed other property owners a duty to minimize fire hazards by restricting smoking and maintaining the native vegetation on the golf course.
We need not decide the duty question as we conclude Omni met its burden on summary judgment of showing Axis could not establish the causation element of its claims, and Axis failed to meet its corresponding burden of establishing there was a triable issue of material fact as to causation. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.