CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Ernest Lane Morales appeals after a jury found him guilty of arson of an inhabited structure and acquitted him of five counts of attempted murder. He contends the court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial, admitting evidence of his drug use, and incorrectly instructing the jury regarding the intent required for arson. He further argues the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting inadmissible evidence and that cumulative error resulted. Finding no merit in defendant’s claims, we affirm.

Jack Goulden (Jack), the beneficiary of the Goulden Survivor’s trust (Survivor’s trust) appeals from the probate court’s order approving the sixth and seventh accounts. He contends the court erred because it (1) did not “scrutinize” the accounts before approving them, (2) approved excess trustee fees, and (3) personally charged the beneficiaries to pay outstanding costs and fees. We affirm.

Daniel D. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and removal orders, contending the petition failed to state a cause of action and there is insufficient evidence to support the sustained allegations related to sexual grooming. We conclude that Father has forfeited his claim that the sexual grooming allegation does not state a cause of action under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). We exercise our discretion to consider Father’s claim of insufficient evidence concerning the grooming allegation and modify the allegation to strike the references to sexual grooming.
We affirm the juvenile court’s orders as modified.

Rosalyn Jones appeals her sentence after the trial court revoked probation. Jones claims the trial court either abused its discretion in imposing the high term sentence or failed to exercise its discretion at all. Jones also argues the trial court miscalculated her presentence custody credit and potentially imposed certain one time-only assessments twice. As discussed below, we affirm Jones’s sentence, but reverse and remand for further proceedings on the other issues raised on appeal.

Sonia M. (Mother) appeals from a jurisdiction/disposition order declaring her infant son, Baby Boy M. (the child), to be a dependent child of the court and removing him from her custody. She contends there was no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that the child was at risk due to Mother’s mental illness or homelessness. Mother also challenges the dispositional order based both on lack of jurisdiction and that it was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm the order.

Von Earlsal Cowan appeals the judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted on four counts of kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1)); two counts of simple kidnapping (§ 207); and 12 counts of robbery (§ 211). The jury further found true with respect to all counts that Cowan personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) Following a motion for a new trial, the trial court reduced the kidnapping convictions on four counts to false imprisonment. (§ 236.) The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 540 years to life.

Plaintiff and appellant James E. Moore appeals the trial court’s order disqualifying his attorney, objector and appellant James P. Griffith. In his capacity as personal representative of the estate of Barbara Jean Hayes (Barbara), defendant and respondent Edward P. Hayes (Hayes) moved for Griffith’s disqualification based on his prior representation of Barbara with respect to issues raised in the underlying litigation against her estate.

In October 2001, appellant Gregory Thompson entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) to one count of assault with intent to commit a specified sex crime. (Pen. Code, § 220.) Appellant was committed to the California Department of Mental Health and admitted to Patton State Hospital (Patton), with a maximum commitment date of January 2, 2017. (§ 1026.) He now appeals from an order following a jury trial to extend his commitment under section 1026.5, subdivision (b). Appellant challenges the admission of excerpts of his medical records as more prejudicial than probative. He also contends the trial court erred in permitting case-specific hearsay evidence in support of expert opinion of his disability, in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). We affirm.

Defendants Raymond Cohen and Raymond M. Cohen, CPA, a Professional Corporation (collectively, Cohen) appeal from the trial court’s denial of their special motion to strike brought under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Cohen brought the motion in a lawsuit filed by plaintiff and respondent Mary Ann Durning alleging that Cohen and other accounting professionals engaged in a years-long conspiracy—first to manipulate Ms. Durning’s ailing husband, actor Charles Durning, to amend his estate plan to disinherit her in favor of Mr. Durning’s children; then to deprive plaintiff of her share of community property, while saddling her with disproportionate tax liabilities; and finally to charge her for accounting services she did not receive.

R.M. appeals an order adjudicating him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after the juvenile court found true allegations that he committed four acts of vandalism (Pen. Code, §§ 594.3, subd. (a), 594, subd. (a)). He contends the court erred (1) when it denied his motion to quash a search and arrest warrant; and (2) when it did not determine his suitability for deferred entry of judgment. We conditionally reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant and appellant Angel Anthony Mendoza (defendant) appeals from his first degree murder conviction. He contends that the admission of his statements to an undercover informant violated his constitutional right to due process, and that certified court documents were admitted in violation of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant also contends that his trial counsel’s failure to preserve these issues for review resulted in a denial of effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. As defendant’s contentions are without merit, we affirm the judgment.

Antoine Floyde appeals a judgment dismissing his lawsuit against Jess Gonzales and Donna J. Sheardown following the trial court's order granting a nonsuit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581c.) 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 personnel records during its in camera review on a Pitchess motion. We affirm.

In this malicious prosecution action, plaintiff Gerald V. Hollingsworth appeals from the order granting attorney fees of $10,920 to defendant Steven L. Sugars, the prevailing party under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.