CA Unpub Decisions

C.C., father of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 358, 360.) Father contends the orders must be reversed because the juvenile court proceeded to trial on jurisdiction in his absence, in violation of Penal Code section 2625 and his due process rights. Finding any error harmless, we shall affirm.

Cross-complainant and appellant Eric W. Giannini (the Tenant), acting in propria persona, appeals the trial court’s order granting the SLAPP motion of cross-defendants and respondents John and Rosalie Kane (the Landlords), to strike the Tenant’s malicious prosecution cross-claim brought within the very lawsuit upon which the malicious prosecution claim was premised.
The Tenant argues the trial court abused its discretion in striking his malicious prosecution claim because the Landlords’ act of amending their original unlawful detainer complaint to eliminate the unlawful detainer portion of the action resulted in a “termination” of the unlawful detainer action that was favorable to the Tenant.

A planned purse snatch turned into a double murder case when two people (Ritchie Rasmee and Sokhunthear Hin) were killed in a vehicle collision as the robbers fled the scene, a classic application of the felony-murder rule. The driver-robber (Brittney Xaviera Tamayo) pleaded guilty to two counts of voluntary manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against defendant Tevin Taylor, the robber who snatched Maria B.’s purse. The jury found defendant guilty of two counts of murder and one count of robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 211.) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for a total unstayed term of 50 years to life. Defendant timely filed this appeal.

Defendants in criminal cases have a federal constitutional right to represent themselves when they voluntarily and intelligently elect to do so. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 807, 819-820, 835-836 [45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta).) After defendant David Arron Clark opted to represent himself, a jury found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated) and willful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the allegation that he used a deadly weapon—a wooden bat. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Following the appointment of counsel, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of four years in prison but suspended execution of sentence and placed him on probation for three years.

While on probation, defendant Keandrey Marquis Brown accosted an elderly woman as she loaded items she had just purchased from a nearby store into her car; he shot her twice in the side after she refused to relinquish her purse, severely injuring her. He later stole a bike and fled the scene with her purse. A jury found him guilty of robbery, elder abuse, and petty theft of the bicycle (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 368, subd. (b)(1), 484, subd. (a)), but acquitted him of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true that in the commission of the robbery, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, which caused great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subds. (c) & (d)), personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b)), and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).

Following the denial of their motion to suppress, a jury found codefendants Tiwain Joshua Norman and Jeffrey Alan Permut guilty of conspiracy to possess marijuana for sale (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). The jury found not true an allegation that defendants were armed in the commission of that offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found Norman not guilty of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1)) or possessing a firearm while under the age of 30 and adjudged a ward of the juvenile court (§ 29820). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true an allegation Norman had a prior juvenile strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).

In January 2002, Roderick Nathaniel Washington entered a Best Buy store and used false identification to purchase $2,818.18 worth of merchandise. He then went to a Target store, where he used false identification to purchase $633.21 worth of merchandise. A jury found him guilty of two counts of second degree commercial burglary for the Best Buy crimes (Pen. Code, § 459) and one count each of grand theft of personal property and identity theft for the Target crimes (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (a), 530.5, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to state prison for a total of eight years, later reduced to six years, and has completed his sentence.

M.R. appeals a judgment of the juvenile court sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition finding M.R. committed robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) We conclude, among other things, that substantial evidence supports the judgment. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Marcelo De La Fuente appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw or vacate his pleas based on his claim that his counsel affirmatively misadvised him about the immigration consequences of entering no contest pleas to committing a lewd act upon a child and committing sexual penetration by foreign object. We affirm.

Dr. James Shenouda, D.V.M., appeals from a judgment of the trial court denying his petition for writ of administrative mandate. The court found that the weight of the evidence presented at the administrative hearing supported the decision of the Veterinary Medical Board (the Board) imposing disciplinary restrictions on Dr. Shenouda’s veterinary practice after finding he committed certain negligent and/or incompetent acts while treating four animal patients. Dr. Shenouda contends that the trial court erred because the expert witness complainant Annemarie Del Mugnaio (Complainant) presented at the administrative hearing failed to establish that Dr. Shenouda breached the applicable standard of care in the practice of veterinary medicine. Dr. Shenouda’s brief on appeal, however, does not pr

In July 2016, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, alleging domestic violence between L.M.P. (mother) and M.L. (father), substance abuse by mother, and sexual abuse by both parents of the couple’s twin girls, H.L. and F.L. At the contested jurisdictional hearing that took place over several weeks in May and June 2017, the Department moved, pursuant to section 350, subdivision (c), to dismiss the dependency petition in its entirety. Counsel for H.L. and F.L., joined by mother, objected to the dismissal of the sexual abuse allegations against father. The court, without objection from any party, dismissed the domestic violence allegations and all allegations against mother. Minors presented evidence in support of the court’s continuing jurisdiction with respect to the allegations of sexual abuse by father.

Gordon P. Getty (Getty) is the father of Andrew Rork Getty (Andrew). Andrew died on March 31, 2015, and his estate is being probated in the Los Angeles Superior Court. During Andrew’s lifetime, Getty loaned Andrew more than $12 million dollars. On December 16, 2015, Getty filed a creditor’s claim in Andrew’s estate—less than 60 days after Getty had been served with a notice of administration pursuant to Probate Code sections 9050 and 9052, and less than a year after Andrew’s death. Getty also served the claim on the estate’s personal representative along with a large binder documenting the existence and amount of the loans. On October 4, 2016, the personal representative filed a petition for approval of the claim. The probate court granted the approval petition over the objections of the estate’s sole beneficiary, Alisa Holmes (Holmes).

Plaintiff and appellant Francois Tabi challenges the trial court’s dismissal of his case after sustaining defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend. We have reviewed the record de novo and conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the lawsuit. We thus affirm.

Action A Parent & Teen Support Program, Inc. (Action) and its principal Cary Quashen (Quashen) appeal the trial court’s order awarding Adly Enterprises, LLC (Adly) $77,047.60 in attorney fees in Adly’s breach of lease action and denying, in part, Action’s motion for sanctions. Action contends Adly was a suspended corporation for three separate intervals during the breach of lease litigation, and pursuant to Corporations Code section 2205, was not entitled to attorney fees during those time periods. Action also contends the trial court improperly reduced the sanctions it requested. We affirm.