CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal after the trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress and a no contest plea was then entered to the felony violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) (transportation of cocaine). Appellant was sentenced to three years’ probation, along with fines and fees and 90 days in the county jail. He entered his plea on July 24, 2015, and his notice to appeal was filed on September 23, 2015. Appellant has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming his trial attorney’s conduct violated his Sixth Amendment rights.

Pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of respondent, Specialized Bicycle Components Inc. (Specialized), and against appellants, Mark Palmer and Palmer Sports Group, LLC (PSG). Appellants did not appeal. Instead, nine months later, they moved to set aside the stipulated judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and to compel arbitration. They now appeal from the denial of that motion. We shall affirm.

Peter Gerra appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Victoria Simmonds, his former employee. The court concluded Gerra sexually harassed Simmonds, inflicted significant emotional distress on her, and constructively terminated her employment. The court characterized the case as a “classic she said-he said,” and concluded Simmonds’s testimony was more credible than Gerra’s.
On appeal, Gerra argues the evidence was insufficient to support several aspects of the judgment, and that the allegations of Simmonds’s complaint were inadequate to support her claims of severe or pervasive sexual harassment. However, we are obligated to presume the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment unless the appellant affirmatively proves that it was not. That burden cannot be satisfied in the absence of a complete record of all the evidence admitted at trial.

Appellant Ariel G. [Father], father of Kayla and K.G., appeals the juvenile court’s July 2017 jurisdictional and dispositional orders. Father does not dispute the factual findings made by the court, including findings that he physically abused both his daughters and inappropriately touched Kayla, but contends that because the incidents occurred years in the past and he no longer has contact with the children, the sustained factual allegations did not support assertion of jurisdiction in 2017. He further contends the court erred in “removing” the children from his custody, as he did not have physical custody at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. We find jurisdiction supported by the factual findings, and that any error in removing the children from Father was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Carlos Arteaga of two counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder, with criminal street gang and firearm use enhancements. Sentenced to 35 years to life in prison, Arteaga appeals. He contends the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on two lesser included offenses, and the matter must be remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements pursuant to recently amended Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h). We affirm Arteaga’s convictions, but remand the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion and determine whether to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Cody William Leffler of possession of a billy or blackjack, and possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun. Leffler contends the trial court’s response to one of the jury’s questions was erroneous, and requires reversal of his conviction for possessing a billy. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.

Defendants and appellants, Alonzo Harris and Floyd Nelson, appealed their convictions for charges arising out of a series of robberies, attempted robberies and associated crimes. In an unpublished opinion filed on August 29, 2017, we affirmed the judgment as to Harris. As to Nelson, we modified the judgment, affirmed it as modified, and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
Harris and Nelson petitioned for review of our decision. Among other things, they argued they were entitled to the benefit of newly enacted Senate Bill 620, which became effective on January 1, 2018, and gives trial courts discretion to strike certain firearm enhancements in the interest of justice. Our Supreme Court granted appellants’ petitions for review and transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill 620.

On June 27, 2018, Moosa Al-Moosa (appellant) filed a motion in this court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(10), Family Code section 2025, and California Rules of Court, rule 5.392(d), to appeal an order on a bifurcated issue in this dissolution proceeding (Motion). Family Code section 2025 provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the court has ordered an issue or issues bifurcated for separate trial or hearing in advance of the disposition of the entire case, a court of appeal may order an issue or issues transferred to it for hearing and decision when the court that heard the issue or issues certifies that the appeal is appropriate. Certification by the court shall be in accordance with rules promulgated by the Judicial Council.” (Italics added.) Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(10), confirms that an interim order made appealable by the Family Code may be immediately appealed.

A jury convicted appellant Doffus Lomack Gallon of possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The trial court found he had two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). After striking the lesser included offense of cocaine possession, the court sentenced appellant to 12 years in state prison. Appellant contends the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury on the corpus delicti rule. He also argues the court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the upper term. Finally, appellant argues—and the Attorney General agrees—the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment should be modified. We modify the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment. As modified, we affirm.

Kevin Payne appeals from an order denying his anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Payne posted comments on a website describing real estate broker Kazem Abbasov as a "scammer" who engaged in bank fraud in connection with the short sale of Payne's neighbor's property, for a price Payne believed was below market value and caused Payne's property to lose value. Abbasov sued Payne for defamation and trade libel. Payne moved to strike the lawsuit under section 425.16, subdivision (b), arguing it arose from protected acts of free speech and was thus subject to dismissal as a SLAPP suit. The trial court agreed with Payne that the lawsuit arose from protected activities but nevertheless denied Payne's motion, finding Abbasov established a probability he would prevail on his claims. We find that Payne's posting does not involve an issue of public interest and therefore is not entitled to protection under section 425.16, subdivisions

Defendant Jeannette C. Long appeals following her conviction of possessing a blank or unfinished check with intent to complete it in order to defraud someone (Count One) and passing checks with insufficient funds with intent to defraud (Counts Four and Five). (Pen. Code, §§ 475, subd. (b), 476a; unless otherwise set forth, statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code.) The trial court placed defendant on formal probation.

Gilbert E. Atencio, Sr., acting in propria persona, appeals from an order dismissing his petition and amended petition to compel an accounting. Atencio has not demonstrated any error, so we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Anthony Wayne Mahan appeals from a trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Health & Safety Code section 11361.8, subdivision (b) (Proposition 64). We affirm.

Following a jury trial, defendant Clinton Adam Delap was convicted of committing a lewd act on a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to the low term of three years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion and denied him due process in admitting evidence of his 2010 possession of child pornography as uncharged misconduct evidence. He also claims the court abused its discretion in denying probation. Finding no error, we shall affirm the judgment.