CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Gustavo Sanchez sued defendants Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (Taylor) and RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation (RoundPoint) for violations of the Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) (Civ. Code § 2920.5 et seq.), claiming his property was sold at a trustee’s sale while RoundPoint was still negotiating Sanchez’s loan modification application. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in their favor. Sanchez appeals, contending triable issues of fact exist as to whether he was provided with adequate notice that RoundPoint had denied his loan modification application and whether he suffered damages. We affirm.

Appellant M.H. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services with her 12-year-old daughter, H.H. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in concluding that the San Francisco Human Services Agency (the Agency) made reasonable efforts to provide Mother services throughout the reunification period and in terminating her services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, subdivision (c)(1)(B) after only six months. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in allowing H.H. to control if visitation occurred. We affirm the order terminating reunification services but reverse and remand the visitation order.

The minor in this case, Lina A., appeals from a restitution order of the juvenile court. Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel states that he advised his client by telephone, and also in a letter addressed to her last known address, that a Wende brief would be filed and that Lina may personally file a supplemental brief within 30 days raising any issues she may wish to call to the court’s attention. The minor filed no such brief.

Anthony Merino (appellant) appeals from judgment sentencing him to prison for two years and eight months after he pled no contest to two counts of indecent exposure under Penal Code section 314, subdivision (1), with a prior conviction under section 288. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.

Marc Furlan appeals his jury conviction for second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189). Furlan argues the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury he could be convicted of involuntary manslaughter on a theory that the killing was perpetrated without malice while committing assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Furlan also contends he is entitled to a limited remand, pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), to make a record in anticipation of an eventual youth offender parole hearing. The People concede he is entitled to such a limited remand. We affirm the judgment and order a limited remand.

Radiah Simone Fort appeals from the denial of her request for a domestic violence restraining order. Because she has not met her burden to show error, we shall affirm.

This is an appeal from judgment after a jury convicted defendant Tajiri Hamisi Turner, Jr., of several counts of aggravated and simple kidnapping and robbery, as well as a single count of dissuading a witness through use of force or threats. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction on three of the kidnapping counts. Defendant also contends, and the People concede, that the trial court miscalculated his presentence conduct credits. For the reasons provided below, we reverse defendant’s conviction on two counts of simple kidnapping, remand to the trial court to modify the abstract of judgment to award him 84 additional days of presentence conduct credits, and in all other regards affirm the judgment.

Appellant Lance Edwin Evans was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of evading a peace officer, driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater, driving without a valid driver’s license, and resisting a peace officer. On appeal, he contends (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial based on a police officer’s use of the irrelevant and inflammatory word “hostage” during his testimony; (2) substantial evidence does not support any of his convictions; and (3) the court should have held an evidentiary hearing to address his claim of bailiff misconduct. We shall affirm the judgment.

After he failed to return home from work one night, the body of victim Wing Ming Chan was found in a common area of the building housing his restaurant. Defendant Zhi Jian Mei, who was a cook at the restaurant, was arrested hours later and charged with first degree felony murder and robbery, with a sentence enhancement allegation attached to both counts for use of a deadly and dangerous weapon. Following a trial by jury, defendant was convicted of second degree murder committed with a deadly and dangerous weapon, but was acquitted of the robbery count. The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life for murder plus an additional one year for the weapon enhancement, for a total indeterminate term of 16 years to life. In this appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statement to detectives on the ground that it was coerced and therefore involuntary, in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).

Defendant and appellant, Michael Joseph Orrantia, pled guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 years by force, violence, duress, menace, and fear. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1); counts 1 & 3.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 20 years.
After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Tyree Marquez Burt jumped over a fence and entered the backyard of Dennie Ray Creer’s home. Creer’s neighbors observed defendant in the backyard and asked if he knew Creer. Defendant ran away. Creer was asleep inside but when he awoke he discovered the screen on one of his windows had been removed and the blinds had been pushed in.
Defendant was found guilty of one count of first degree burglary while the home was occupied (Pen. Code, § 459). In a bifurcated proceeding, after he waived his right to a jury trial, defendant admitted he had suffered one prior serious and violent felony conviction and served two prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced defendant to 11 years to be served in state prison.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Kristen Alisa Figueroa of grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) The trial court granted defendant formal probation for a period of three years, with the condition that she serve 270 days in the custody of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.
Defendant raises nine issues on appeal. First, defendant contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence that the theft was motivated by defendant’s drug abuse. Second, in the alternative, if the foregoing issue was forfeited, then defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective. Third, defendant asserts the trial court erred by not permitting defendant to show her arms to the jury to rebut the evidence that she abused drugs.

Appellants and respondents are property owners/managers of adjoining rural properties near Temecula. Their disputes concern three alleged road easements burdening appellants' property, and activities related to the use or preclusion of use of these easements. Both sets of parties brought complaints and cross-complaints seeking to resolve the disputes.
After the parties waived their jury trial rights, the court conducted a seven-day trial. In the first phase, appellants presented evidence on their claims against respondents. At the conclusion of appellants' case, the court granted respondents' motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. The court found appellants' testimony was not credible and they did not meet their burden to prove their claims against respondents.

Defendant Alyce J. Williams pleaded guilty to making a false statement in support of an insurance claim. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court dismissed the other count of presenting a false motor vehicle claim, and ordered her to serve three years of summary probation and pay victim restitution, including to Farmers Insurance (Farmers) in an amount to be determined.
At an evidentiary hearing to determine if Farmers was owed victim restitution, respondent the People presented evidence of a cost model employed by Farmers in which the company, on the one hand, used an average investigator's annual salary, benefits, company car expenses, administrative costs and travel expenses, which number, on the other hand, it then divided by 126, the average number of claims each of its investigators annually investigated.