CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant David Charles Burgess pled guilty to drug charges in four separate cases. In the principle case, which is the basis for defendant’s jail sentence, he admitted three special allegations that he served prior prison terms and three special allegations that he committed crimes while on bail in three other felony cases. This appeal concerns three statutes: (1) the sentencing provisions of Proposition 64; (2) the sentencing enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.1 (section 12022.1) for offenses committed while released on bail; and (3) the newly revised Health and Safety Code section 11370.2.

Liliana T. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court's orders sustaining the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency's (Agency) petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), on behalf of her minor daughter, K.S., and removing K.S. from parental custody. Mother contends there was no substantial evidence to support the jurisdictional findings as to her or removal. K.S.'s father, Jeffrey S. (Father) is not a party to this appeal. The Agency maintains the orders were appropriate and supported by the record. We agree and affirm.

Julius C. (Father) argues that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding regarding his daughter, J.C., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), based on allegations of physical abuse. C.C. (Mother) joins Father's arguments. We affirm.

Defendant Herbert Cornejo Mendez was convicted of the first degree murder of Angel Palacios, with the special circumstance of lying-in-wait, with personal use of a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(15), 12022, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23).) The primary evidence against Mendez was provided by Mendez's confessions to law enforcement officials. Mendez contends that the first two confessions, which were conducted by an FBI agent in El Salvador, were involuntary, and that these confessions tainted the voluntariness of his two later confessions to a Riverside County Deputy Sheriff, so that all his confessions must be excluded.

Aireon E. Brown pleaded guilty to robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The court suspended imposition of sentence for three years and placed him on formal probation.
Brown appeals without raising any specific claims of error. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Harley Davidson and its subsidiaries (Harley-Davidson) form a multistate enterprise with numerous functionally integrated subsidiary corporations. It contends that defendant California Franchise Tax Board's (Board) tax scheme violates the commerce clause of the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3), claiming that it burdens interstate enterprises by providing a benefit to intrastate enterprises not available to interstate enterprises. An intrastate unitary business may use either combined or separate accounting to report its income to the Board, whereas Harley-Davidson and other interstate unitary businesses must use the combined reporting method, without the option of separate accounting for each related entity. The trial court granted summary judgment for Harley-Davidson.

James C. Walters, Jr., raises two issues pertaining to fines, fees and penalty assessments in three cases. In case SCN358801, a jury found Walters guilty of taking and driving a vehicle, buying or receiving a stolen vehicle and possessing a controlled substance for sale. The trial court sentenced Walters to a total prison term of four years eight months. The court imposed a laboratory analysis fee and a criminal drug program fee, and included a penalty assessment on both. Walters contends the trial court improperly imposed penalty assessments on the criminal laboratory analysis fee and a drug program fee. The court also imposed sentence following probation revocation in two earlier cases. In case SCN329905, the court imposed a previously stayed three-year term and ran this concurrently to the sentence imposed for case SCN358801. In case SCN351956 the court imposed a four-year concurrent term.

Defendant Todd Wesley Dupree appeals a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of possession of a controlled substance while armed (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)), giving false information to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)), and resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of transitory possession of both the gun and drugs requiring reversal.
We affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Nicholas Medina guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187), premeditated attempted murder (§§ 664/187), and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246), and sustained a lying-in-wait special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)) and an armed with a firearm allegation (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole plus 17 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to give an accomplice instruction, there was insufficient evidence to support lying in wait as a theory of first degree murder or a special circumstance, the lying-in-wait special circumstance violated the federal Constitution by being indistinguishable from the lying-in-wait theory of first degree murder, and imposition of sentence on the shooting at an occupied building count should have been stayed pursuant to section 654. We shall affirm.

In 2006, Defendant and Appellant Pompeyo Garcia (Garcia) pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of money over $100,000. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.6, subd. (a).) Pursuant to the plea, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence of four years imprisonment, but suspended execution of the sentence and placed Garcia on five years of formal probation with the first 364 days to be spent in county jail. Garcia successfully completed probation and obtained dismissal of his conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4 in 2011. Shortly thereafter, Garcia received notice that deportation proceedings had been initiated against him. Garcia was ordered removed from the United States to Guatemala on November 27, 2015.
On November 13, 2017, Garcia filed a motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7, alleging he “was not fully advised and thus did not knowingly waive the adverse immigration consequences of his plea.” The court denied the motion on November 16, 2017.

Plaintiff and appellant Oscar Machuca (Machuca) appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of defendants and respondents Nationwide Legal, LLC (Nationwide), his former employer, and Reyna Alvarez (Alvarez), his former supervisor (collectively, Nationwide or Defendants), in an employment discrimination case.
The issues presented are whether the trial court erred in granting Nationwide’s motion to compel arbitration, and thereafter, whether the trial court erred in confirming the award. We perceive no error in either ruling and therefore affirm the judgment.

Sam Shadab, Jamshid Shadab and Siamak Haghighi (appellants) and Elinor Goldberg and Albert Goldberg (respondents) jointly own a parcel of undeveloped residential property. Following a dispute regarding payment of the property expenses, the parties sued each other for, among other things, partition and an accounting. The matter proceeded to a bench trial at which the parties submitted evidence of their expense payments but no expert accounting testimony. The trial court ultimately entered judgment in favor of respondents, awarded them $41,283.71 in property expenses, and ordered Jamshid and Haghighi to pay Elinor $99,761.46 in attorney fees as the prevailing party. Appellants challenge these rulings, contending that (1) the court abused its discretion in denying their request for an accounting referee; (2) the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence; (3

K.R. appeals from a juvenile court order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him on probation after he admitted to possessing a firearm. His counsel asked this court to independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [Wende procedure applies in juvenile delinquency appeals].) K.R. was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm.

In April of 2014, defendant Donald Hill was standing with a group of men near the mailboxes outside his apartment complex when he allegedly handed a gun to Timothy Mitchell. Shortly thereafter Mitchell, together with Danny Jeffreys, walked behind a fence and opened fire on another group of men across the street. Tereaun Berry was killed, and his brother Trent was injured. Hill was charged with murder and attempted murder on the theory that he aided and abetted both Mitchell and Jeffreys by handing Mitchell the gun. He was tried separately from several other defendants and a jury found him guilty as charged. On appeal, he raises numerous challenges to his convictions. With respect to the murder count, he argues that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted murder and that the trial court erred in responding to the jury’s question during deliberations regarding whether it mattered who fired the fatal shot.