CA Unpub Decisions

In 2013, appellant Chris Hernandez pled no contest to one felony count of transportation of methamphetamine, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a), in exchange for dismissal of other counts. In 2017, Hernandez filed a petition for reduction of his conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (f). The petition was denied without prejudice and Hernandez appeals.
The California Supreme Court in People v. Martinez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 647 (Martinez) holds that convictions under former section 11379 for transportation of a controlled substance, even if the transportation was not for sale, are not eligible for Proposition 47 relief. (Martinez, supra, at pp. 654–656.) Therefore, we affirm.

On September 30, 2016, defendant pled no contest to three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 2, 3 & 9), three counts of infliction of corporal injury to a domestic partner (§ 273.5, subd. (a); counts 4, 5 & 10), dissuading a witness (§ 136.1; count 6), mayhem (§ 203; count 7), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count 8), criminal threats (§ 422; count 11), and misdemeanor contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (c)(1); count 12). Defendant also admitted special allegations. The plea was in exchange for dismissal of count 1 and a 25-year-eight-month prison term.

In this bail forfeiture action, appellant, The North River Insurance Company (North River), moved to exonerate the bond on the ground that the defendant was in custody in another county and a hold had been placed on the defendant in the underlying case. The trial court exonerated the bond but conditioned the exoneration on North River paying the actual costs of returning the defendant to custody from Folsom State Prison pursuant to Penal Code section 1306, subdivision (b).
North River contends the award of transportation costs was improper because those costs were incurred after the defendant was returned to custody, i.e., after the hold was placed on him. North River further argues the trial court should not have awarded costs “in the interest of justice.”
The trial court did not err when it ordered a conditional exoneration. Accordingly, the order will be affirmed.

Appellant Eric Charles Rodriguez stands convicted of assault on a person under the age of 18 years with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code § 220, subd. (a)(2)) and committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child 14 or 15 years of age (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)). At sentencing, the trial court ordered Rodriguez to submit to AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) testing under section 1202.1. Rodriguez contends the evidence does not support the section 1202.1 order. The People agree. We will remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119 (Butler).

Appellant Monico Junior Quiroga is subject to a criminal protective order issued May 13, 2016. He contends clause No. 10 of the order is unconstitutionally vague and must be modified to include an express knowledge requirement. We disagree and affirm.

Plaintiffs borrowed money and guaranteed other loans in connection with a real estate development. The development failed, the loans went into default, and in April 2010 the bank obtained a $2.4 million judgment against plaintiffs. To collect its judgment, the bank foreclosed on real property collateral worth about $1.1 million and obtained a charging order against plaintiffs’ one-half economic interest in two California limited liability companies. (Former Corp. Code, § 17302 [charging orders].) When the limited liability companies made no payments subject to the charging order, the bank foreclosed on the “economic interests” plaintiffs held in the companies. At the foreclosure auction, the bank credit bid and purchased the economic interests for $1.5 million. After the foreclosure, the limited liability companies sold their real estate, ceased their farming operations, and distributed over $5 million to the bank as the holder of 50 percent of the economic interests in

This case is before us for a second time, after the California Supreme Court transferred it back to this court with directions to reconsider in light of the recent opinion in People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page). At issue is whether the trial court erred when it denied defendant Stephen Cahill’s petition to redesignate his conviction for unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) as a misdemeanor. We affirm the order.

The district attorney by amended information charged Joshua Jackson and Christopher Shivers with possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5, count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378, count 2), and street terrorism (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a), count 3), and alleged that the defendants committed counts 1 and 2 for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The jury found Shivers guilty of count 1, Jackson guilty of count 2, and both defendants not guilty of the remaining counts. It also made a not true finding on the criminal gang enhancement allegations.

In his appeal, Mitchell H. (Father) seeks reversal of the juvenile court's decision to remove his son, Brian H., from his custody for failure to obtain appropriate medical care for Brian, who suffers from type 1 diabetes. Father contends there was not substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that he was ineffective in protecting Brian. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the juvenile court's order in its entirety.

Gregory S. Markow and Jamie Altman Buggy for Defendants and Respondents.
The trial court granted a defense summary judgment in this action filed by plaintiff and appellant Jack Naliboff, on breach of contract and related theories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.) In 2006, plaintiff (now represented by his widow and executor Deborah Boyd-Naliboff; together Plaintiff), entered into a written advisory services agreement (ASA) with an entity owning a shopping center, Poway Plaza, LLC (Plaza), for Plaintiff to recover a percentage share of its profits in return for his managerial efforts. Plaza was a California limited liability corporation (LLC) owned by commercial real estate investors affiliated with defendants and respondents Jorge A. Lutteroth (Jorge) and a Nevada company, Luja, LLC (Luja). In 2014, Plaza became the predecessor of defendant and respondent PPDW, LLC, a Delaware company (PPDW; sometimes referred to together with Jorge and Luja as Defendants), when the owners of Plaza de

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Lee Davis asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Sarim Sap Chabb pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter for killing M. B. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of 11 years in state prison and ordered her to pay $28,746.10 in restitution jointly and severally with codefendants. She now appeals from the restitution order, claiming the matter should be remanded so the trial court can modify the restitution order to incorporate the provisions of Family Code section 4007. Defendant concedes that the issue was not raised in the trial court when the matter of restitution was litigated. We conclude that defendant has forfeited the issue by failing to raise it in the trial court. We affirm.

Jose Luis Rojas (appellant) was convicted of murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and the trial court found true the allegation that he personally used a firearm during the offense. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). He was sentenced to 50 years to life, calculated as follows: 25 years to life for murder and an additional 25 years to life based on the firearm enhancement. He was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b). A parole restitution fine under section 1202.45—also $200—was stayed. Finally, appellant was ordered to pay $7,354.60 to the victim pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f). The judgment was affirmed on appeal in People v. Rojas (Aug. 20, 2012, B235368) [nonpub. opn.].

Dependent child Kassidy C. was removed from the custody of her mother, Kimberly D., and placed with her previously noncustodial father, Eric C. Subsequently, the juvenile court granted protective orders against Mother to Father, Kassidy, and five employees of the Department of Children and Family Services; awarded sole legal and physical custody of Kassidy to Father; granted Mother monitored visitation; and terminated dependency court jurisdiction. Mother appeals. We affirm.