CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found Mike Jay Lovelace guilty of one count of using the personal identifying information of another (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)), and one count of burglary (§ 459). Lovelace was placed on formal probation for three years, with an order that he serve 365 days in local custody. Lovelace contends (1) the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his prior felony convictions for the purpose of impeaching his credibility; (2) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by questioning Lovelace on direct examination about the facts underlying his 1994 burglary conviction and eliciting false testimony in doing so; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument; (4) the condition of probation requiring Lovelace to agree to a search of his computers and recordable media should be stricken as unreasonable and overbroad; and (5) the sentencing minute order should be corrected to properly reflect the trial court's oral pronounce

This negligence case arises out of an automobile accident in which defendant Annie N. Vo rear-ended plaintiff Kim Nguyen at a speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour. Defendant admitted to being negligent, but disputed the scope of injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of the accident and the amount of damages to which she should be entitled. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in defendant’s favor after a jury found none of plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the accident. In rendering its verdict, the jury not only rejected the testimony of plaintiff’s experts, but also implicitly rejected the opinion of defendant’s medical expert that plaintiff “had an injury” from the accident which necessitated some treatment and would have left her out of work for a maximum of three months.

The underlying dispute that is the subject of this appeal began in 2005 when appellant Anthony Merlo filed the first of three lawsuits against the City of Palo Alto (City). Merlo alleged that City violated election procedures for the approval of an increase in storm drain fees for property owners in Palo Alto.
Since its origin in 2005, this dispute has resulted in Merlo being designated a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, and having a judgment entered against him for contempt and sanctions in the amount of $45,304.66.
In this appeal, Merlo, proceeding in propria persona, argues that the judgment of contempt and sanctions is void, because the trial court proceedings during which the judgment was entered were automatically stayed pursuant to section 916 by another pending appeal.
We find that the judgment is not void, and affirm.

Defendants Juan Salazar, Jr. and Enrique Nunez Lopez were members of a Sureño gang. At a gang meeting on July 28, 2012, Lopez directed three gang members to beat up a 17-year-old member of the gang, Melina, as punishment for dating a Norteño. At the same meeting, Lopez accused fellow gang member Daniel “Frosty” Fraga, who was not at the meeting, of being “no good” because he had been seen associating with Norteños. Later that day, Frosty confronted Lopez about the accusation at the home where he and several other gang members, including Salazar, were hanging out. Hector “Osito” Reyes, Frosty’s friend and a member of another Sureño gang, accompanied Frosty. Frosty punched Lopez and a fight ensued between Frosty, Lopez, Osito, Salazar, and two other gang members. During the fight, Frosty stabbed Lopez and Salazar and Osito beat two gang members in the head with the butt of a gun. Salazar shot and killed Frosty and Osito.

In 2005, Gina M. Gray (Gray) and David A. Zamora (Zamora) purchased a San Jose residence located at 5850 Cannes Place (the Property). (Gray and Zamora are collectively referred to herein as Appellants.) Approximately one year later, Appellants obtained a $1 million loan from Washington Mutual Bank, FA (WaMu), memorialized by a note secured by a deed of trust encumbering the Property. In July 2013, the Property was sold through a nonjudicial foreclosure sale (or trustee’s sale) to Ling Jin and Yu Pan (collectively, Buyers). Appellants were evicted after contested unlawful detainer proceedings brought by Buyers in the superior court (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 1-13-CV250564; the unlawful detainer action).

In Santa Clara County in 2014, defendant Rion Jakus Redko pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon. (People v. Redko He also admitted that he had a prior strike conviction, and that he had served a prior prison term. Defendant entered his plea and admissions pursuant to a plea agreement providing for 32 months in prison, although the parties understood that his sentence might be less if he was already serving a prison sentence in another case.
At the time of sentencing in the Santa Clara County case, defendant was serving a seven-year prison sentence in Santa Cruz County Superior for petty theft with a prior conviction (and a prior prison term enhancement. The Santa Clara County Superior Court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison for possession of a firearm by a felon, consecutive to the seven-year term for the uncompleted sentence in the Santa Cruz County case, for a total term of eight years four months.

In February 2014, defendant William Arthur Rook pleaded no contest to a number of offenses, including receiving stolen property and possession of a controlled substance, both felonies. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 32 months.
In April 2017, defendant filed a petition to have his felony convictions for receiving stolen property and possession of a controlled substance redesignated as misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47. The trial court granted the petition as to the controlled substance possession count, but denied it as to the receiving stolen property count.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his petition for redesignation of his receiving stolen property conviction, claiming that the court erred by concluding that the conviction was ineligible for Proposition 47 relief. For reasons that we will explain, we will affirm the trial court’s order.

Defendant William Brady pleaded no contest to two counts of assault with a firearm, attempted kidnapping, and stalking in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges and a 33-year prison sentence. The trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed upon term of 33 years in prison.
On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asked this court to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We sent a letter to defendant notifying him of his right to submit a written argument on his own behalf on appeal, which he has done.
Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, we will provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.”

S.J. was born on June 30, 2017 addicted to opiates. The Monterey County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1) on July 17, 2017, alleging that S.J. was in danger based on the failure of Mother, T.V.B., and Father D.J. to protect her.
At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for both parents pursuant to section 366.21, subd. (e)(3), and set the matter for a selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26).
Father petitions this court for an extraordinary writ, arguing that the juvenile court erred by refusing to extend reunification services for six months. We deny the petition.

A jury found Omar Umiye guilty of driving under the influence of drugs (former Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (e), now Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (f)). He admitted to three prior DUI convictions (Veh. Code §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23103), and one prison prior (Pen. Code, § 667.5). The trial court imposed the upper term of three years, plus one year for the prison prior. The court sentenced Umiye to two years in custody, and two years of mandatory supervision. The supervision conditions included notifying the probation officer about residence changes and contacts with law enforcement.
Umiye contends his admissions were invalid, arguing the trial court failed to adequately advise him of his rights and his admissions were not voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. This contention has merit. We reverse the admissions and remand for further proceedings and resentencing.

A jury found defendant Daniel Anthony Oriarte guilty of multiple counts including simple assault, false imprisonment, criminal threats, negligent discharge of a firearm, and spousal battery. On appeal, defendant contends insufficient evidence supported his simple assault conviction and that Penal Code section 654 proscribed punishment for his convictions for criminal threats, negligent discharge of a firearm, and spousal battery. We reverse the simple assault conviction and remand for resentencing as detailed post.

In response to efforts to foreclose on his residence, Dennis Collins sued defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (Nationstar), HSBC Bank USA, National Association as trustee for the holders of the Ellington Loan Acquisition, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2007-2, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., seeking to quiet title to the property. The trial court ultimately sustained defendants’ demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend, ruling that Dennis could not maintain a cause of action for quiet title without alleging tender of the secured debt, and despite two prior opportunities to amend, he had failed to assert the requisite allegations.
Dennis now contends, among other things, that he need not allege tender of payment because although he signed a deed of trust and rider pertaining to the secured transaction, he did not owe the lender any money.

Zoila M., the biological mother of girls, A.R. and E.R., seeks extraordinary writ relief from a March 9, 2018 order terminating family maintenance services and setting the matter for a permanent placement hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452; Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 387, 366.26.) Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in removing the girls and not extending services. We deny the writ petition.

Jeya L. appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order giving custody of her son Troy L. to his father and ordering her to undergo reunification services. Jeya contends the court erred in failing instead to terminate its jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2. We affirm the order.