CA Unpub Decisions

Anthony Q. Hughes was convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), and sentenced to 16 years to life. The trial court ordered Hughes to pay $20,040 in victim restitution, plus interest, “plus an administrative fee not to exceed 15 percent of the restitution owed ( . . . § 1203.1(l)).” In this appeal, Hughes contends the administrative fee is unauthorized and must be stricken because section 1203.1, subdivision (l), applies when a defendant is ordered to pay victim restitution as a condition of probation. Here, the court ordered Hughes to pay victim restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivisions (a) and (f), and not as a condition of probation. Therefore, Hughes requests that we “vacate the trial court’s order requiring appellant to pay a 15 percent administrative fee in addition to direct victim restitution, and remand the case to the trial court to issue a new restitution order which does not include any administrative fee.”

Manuel Williams (Williams) was employed as a bus operator by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) and was a member of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192 (Local 192), the exclusive labor representative for AC Transit employees. Faced with discharge for alleged misconduct, Williams entered into a last chance agreement which required that he complete a counseling program, and provided that noncompliance would result in termination (Agreement). Williams’s noncompliance with the Agreement led to an expedited arbitration and his job termination. Williams sued Local 192 alleging it breached its duty of fair representation by failing to notify him of the arbitration and failing to adequately investigate and to explain his noncompliance to the arbitrator. Local 192 filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted.

In this dependency matter, Father appeals from the juvenile court’s order removing D.B. from his custody pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c). Father asserts that the juvenile court erred in ordering removal in this case, because D.B. was not residing with him at the time the section 387 petition was filed. We find that the trial court erred in ordering removal pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c), but that the error was harmless. We will affirm the order.

Jameilia Loanie McCurin pleaded no contest to pandering (Pen. Code § 266i, subd. (a)(1)), and was sentenced to three years in state prison. The court ordered McCurin to pay restitution to the two minor victims in the amounts of $929.89 and $820.94 respectively.
McCurin challenges the restitution order on appeal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion because there is not substantial evidence to support the amount of the order, and there is not a sufficient nexus between the pandering crime and the victims’ financial losses to demonstrate a rational and factual basis upon which to issue the order. We affirm the judgment.

In this action, the San Benito County Water District (Water District or SBCWD) sought to recover overdue, unpaid groundwater charges and attorney fees and costs of collection from defendant Randall McAlpine, individually and doing business as McAlpine Lake & Park (defendant). Defendant paid $25,000 to the Water District under protest following the trial court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction that went into effect unless and until such payment was made. By motion, the Water District sought an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with collection of defendant’s past due account, relying upon a local regulation (SBCWD Code of Regs., § 4.44.010, subd. C). The court granted the Water District’s motion for attorney fees and costs, but it awarded less than the full amount requested. A signed, written order awarding attorney fees and costs of collection to the Water District was subsequently filed on February 14, 2017.

Following a jury trial, defendant Milton Guillermo Meza was convicted of two counts of kidnapping to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1)) (counts 1 and 5), forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) (count 2), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd (a)(4)) (count 3), and making criminal threats (§ 422) (count 4). The jury also found true a kidnapping allegation pursuant to section 667.61, subdivision (d)(2), the “One Strike” law. Counts 1 through 4 involved one victim, and count 5 involved a different victim.

The City of Irvine (City) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting Future DB International, Inc.’s (FDBI) petition for writ of mandate awarding FDBI its bid preparation costs. The City argues the court erred because FDBI did not comply with the Government Claims Act (the Act) (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq., all further statutory references are to the Government Code). We agree and reverse the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Blake Albizu Castro asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

Respondent Joshua Ochoa was charged by information with murder (under the “natural and probable consequences” doctrine); two gang enhancement allegations were attached to the murder charge. Ochoa was also charged with being an accessory after the fact; a gang enhancement allegation was attached to the accessory charge. Finally, Ochoa was charged with street terrorism (the substantive gang offense).
Ochoa brought a Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside the information. The superior court set aside the murder charge (along with the associated gang enhancements), the street terrorism charge, and the gang enhancement attached to the accessory charge. In light of the court’s indicated sentence of felony probation and credit for time served, Ochoa pleaded the same day to the accessory charge. He was released from custody that day as well, having served approximately 18 months in jail.
The People appeal. We will affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ronnie Earl Howell asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

Defendant Michael Schmidt was convicted by jury of possessing and transporting a controlled substance for sale. The issue at trial was whether his admitted possession of methamphetamine had been for personal use or resale. The claims on appeal concern statements made during the People’s rebuttal argument; defendant alleges prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment.

The original judgment in this wrongful death action was reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only. After a verdict in the second trial was entered, defendants moved for new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct and excessive damages. The trial court entered a conditional new trial order, granting defendants a new trial unless plaintiffs agreed to a reduction in the damage award. Plaintiffs accepted the remittitur and judgment was entered accordingly. Defendants appeal from the judgment and the conditional portion of the new trial order, seeking retrial of the issue of damages. Plaintiffs appeal from the order granting a conditional new trial and seek reinstatement of the jury’s damage award. We reverse and remand for a partial redetermination of the new trial motion.

Appellants Daniel Catalan, Edy Catalan and Roberto Rodriguez, along with a fourth individual, Dennis Ruth, were charged and tried for crimes in connection with the assault of three victims, one of whom suffered critical stab wounds. Defendants were charged with five counts: count 1, attempted premeditated murder of German (Pen. Code, § 664/187, subd. (a)); count 2, assault with a deadly weapon of German (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); count 3, assault of Jamie by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)); count 4, active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)); and count 5, robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)).

Defendant and appellant Abel Jimenez appeals his conviction on one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. He contends that although the trial court properly granted his motion to exclude inculpatory statements he made before being read his Miranda rights, the court erred in failing to exclude similar statements he made after he was given and then waived his rights under Miranda. He contends that the post-Miranda statements were not voluntary because the arresting officer falsely told him that possession of methamphetamine for sale was a misdemeanor and, in an effort to “soften” him up, told him that if he cooperated, they could “work something out.”
We reject defendant’s contention that the officer’s conduct rendered his admission involuntary. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.