CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Jermaine Brown was sentenced to 13 years in state prison after he pleaded no contest to two counts of second degree robbery and admitted one prior prison term and one strike. On appeal, his appointed counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he did so on March 5, 2018. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with our Wende obligations and find no arguable issues. We thus affirm.

The trial court summarily enforced the terms of a settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, over one party’s objection (among others) that the expedited enforcement procedure allowed by that statute could not be utilized, because none of the settling parties had agreed to the settlement either orally in court or in a signed writing, as the statute requires. The argument is reprised on appeal, and we agree. We therefore reverse.

This is a consolidated appeal by Beverly Turnbaugh from postdissolution child support and litigation costs orders in favor of her former spouse Jeffrey Turnbaugh. First, Beverly challenges the trial court’s August 12, 2015 order modifying a prior child support order and denying her request for Jeffrey to pay half of their children’s private tuition costs. Second, she challenges the court’s April 10, 2017 order requiring her to pay most of Jeffrey’s litigation costs. We will affirm both orders.

Defendant Lorenzo Escalera was convicted of three counts of oral copulation with a child under 10 years old, two counts of attempted oral copulation with a child under 10 years old, and one count of committing a lewd act on a child. On appeal, defendant asserts seven errors, the first of which is that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to reopen jury selection to allow him to exercise one of his remaining peremptory challenges to dismiss Juror No. 5, who disclosed new information about herself after jury selection concluded but before the jury had been sworn. We agree this was error. We thus reverse defendant’s conviction and remand the matter for a new trial, without the need to address defendant’s remaining contentions.

Appellant Lefty, LLC (Lefty) appeals from an adverse judgment against it following a bench trial, asserting the trial court erred in enforcing what it contends is an invalid liquidated damages clause. Lefty advances two arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court improperly evaluated the reasonableness of the liquidated damages amount by looking in hindsight to the actual damages suffered, not to the anticipated damages at the time the clause was agreed to, and (2) even if the trial court correctly looked to anticipated damages, it improperly evaluated the reasonableness of liquidated damages by including certain costs that were not eligible for inclusion in its calculation of anticipated damages. We see no merit to either argument and therefore affirm.

Defendant Sean Owens appeals following convictions for grand theft and possession of methamphetamine for sale, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized when he was detained on suspicion of stealing a “bait bike” owned by the San Jose State University Police Department. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by not requiring the prosecution to call a dispatcher to testify at a suppression hearing about the GPS location information obtained from a device attached to the bike; that the trial court erred in finding defendant was detained near the last reported GPS location; that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain defendant; and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not asserting that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his pants pocket where some of the methamphetamine was found. we will affirm the judgment as there was reasonable suspicion to support defendant’s detention

George Williams challenges an order appointing his adult daughter’s mother and grandmother as her conservators (Conservatorship of N.W., case No. H039899). He separately appeals a domestic violence restraining order against him obtained by his daughter’s mother (Lopez v. Williams, case No. H04550), and a civil harassment restraining order against him obtained by Maurice Roberson (Roberson v. Williams, case No. H040971). We ordered the appeals considered together and will affirm the decisions in the conservatorship and domestic violence restraining order cases. We will dismiss the appeal of the civil harassment restraining order as moot.

A jury convicted defendant Chandler Emile Graham of four counts of
second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)); assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)); evading while driving recklessly (Veh. Code § 2800.2); unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)).1 As to the four robbery counts, the jury found defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53). The trial court found true that defendant had previously suffered a strike prior, within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1) and 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c)(1), and a serious felony prior, within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (a)(1), and 1192.7. The trial court sentenced defendant to 44 years and four months in prison, 20 years of which were for the firearm enhancements.

Appellant Victor Estrada appeals following the trial court’s decision to order him to arbitrate his disputes with his former employer, the Automobile Club of Southern California (the Auto Club). He argues there was never a valid arbitration agreement. He further contends that even if the case was properly ordered to arbitration, the arbitrator failed to provide the proper disclosures about previous rulings in the Auto Club’s favor.
We conclude there is no substantial evidence of an agreement to arbitrate in this particular case. There is no signed agreement; merely a declaration by a supervisor that does not include the requisite facts to support the conclusion that Estrada was ever given a copy of the arbitration agreement. We therefore reverse and remand, and need not consider Estrada’s remaining argument with respect to arbitrator disclosures.

Justin H. is the biological father of one-year-old Raymond H. On August 15, 2017, the juvenile court terminated Justin’s parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) and he appealed. After reviewing the juvenile court record, Justin’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on Justin’s behalf. This court granted Justin leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists.
Justin submitted a letter in which he acknowledges that he cannot identify any errors committed on the part of the juvenile court. He also acknowledges that he cannot raise Raymond at this time. Justin merely seeks to explain his circumstances.
We conclude Justin failed to address the termination proceedings or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

Appointed counsel for minor C.W. asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to minor, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Minor did not respond. We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua Daniel Moon asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded, arguing he was given no accommodation or consideration for his disabilities at trial, sentencing, or resentencing. We affirm.

Appellant J.P. is the subject of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. After a contested hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegations that J.P. committed second degree robbery and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. J.P. was committed to the Juvenile Justice Center (JJC); however, after his fourth probation violation, he was committed to the California Department of Corrections, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). J.P. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the DJJ. We affirm.

After a motion to suppress was denied, appellant Eric Martinez (defendant) pled no contest to one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code § 11378) and admitted a Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) firearm enhancement. Defendant appeals contending the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. We affirm.