CA Unpub Decisions

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Katherine A. Bacal, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard A. Schulman and Richard A. Schulman for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer and Josh Chatten-Brown and Kathryn Pettit for Respondent.
Appellant and real party in interest RCS-Harmony Partners, LLC (Harmony) appeals a postjudgment order awarding plaintiff and respondent Sierra Club $468,228.73 in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 private attorney general fees for Sierra Club’s successful petition for a writ of mandate directing the County of San Diego (County) to vacate and set aside its certification of an environmental impact report and approval for two development projects: Harmony Grove Village South and Valiano.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, and Robin Urbanski and Yvette M. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In a prior appeal, we conditionally reversed a judgment against Markeith Jenkins imposing a prison sentence of 13 years plus 25 years to life based on a jury verdict convicting him of an assault causing great bodily injury and his admissions of strike and serious felony priors.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
Deanna L. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Warren J. Williams and Juliet W. Park, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
At age 14, K.Z. (the Minor) was charged by petition with one felony count of committing a lewd act on a child under 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) Before the adjudication hearing, the Minor moved to be placed on informal supervision, which, if successfully completed, would have resulted in dismissal of the charge against him. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 654.2.) Under the version of section 654.3 then in effect, the Minor was presumptively ineligible for informal supervision because he was “alleged to have commit

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Justin Andrew Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Melissa Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael Eugene Jones appeals his conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), driving with a measurable blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more causing injury (id., § 23153, subd. (b)), and driving with a suspended license (id., § 14601.1, subd. (a)). Jones argues (1) the trial court erred in finding he was not subject to custodial interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) when he made incriminating statements about his alcohol consumption during a DUI evaluation;

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard S. Whitney, Judge. Affirmed.
The Nalu Law Firm, Michael Nalu; Williams Iagmin and Jon R. Williams for Defendants and Appellants.
Shustak Reynolds & Partners and Paul A. Reynolds for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendants Joshua Weisbord (Joshua) and his father Barry Weisbord (Barry) (collectively, the Weisbords) appeal the trial court order and resulting judgment affirming an arbitration award of $322,152.43 (Arbitration Award) for plaintiff Shustak Reynolds & Partners, P.C. (Shustak or Law Firm), the former attorneys of Joshua in a third-party action. The Weisbords contend the trial court erred in refusing to vacate the Arbitration Award on the grounds the arbitrator abused her discretion in declining to (1) continue the arbitration hearing (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(5)) and (2) hear material evidence (ibid.).

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, David S. Cohn, Judge. Affirmed in part; denied in part.
Von Esch Law Group, Robert Alexander Von Esch IV and David V. Luu for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Price K. Kent, Price K. Kent; Lack Law Group and Rebecca D. Lack; Law Office of Mark A. Padilla and Mark A. Padilla for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Dallaswhite Corporation (Dallaswhite) appeals the judgment for Mary Mowbray (Mary), following a bench trial in which the court found Dallaswhite breached the parties’ written home repair construction contract. The court, after making various setoffs, awarded Mary compensatory damages of $16,803.57.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lizbet Muñoz, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Monica A. Bennett for Appellant.
The Curran Law Firm and Michaela C. Curran for Respondent H.A.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Brown and Darin L. Wessel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent County of San Diego.
B.R. (Mother) appeals from the family court’s order of October 2, 2020, which ruled on her request to modify the child support she pays to H.A. (Father) for the support of their minor child. Mother also contends that her attorney, Monica Bennett, should not have to pay the $900 that she was ordered to pay to Father’s counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

APPEALS from judgment and orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joel R. Wohlfeil, Judge. Judgment affirmed; appeals of orders dismissed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Law Offices of Murray M. Helm, Jr., Murray M. Helm, Jr., and Mark A. Maasch for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants, and Appellants.
David A. Kay for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.
INTRODUCTION
Deane Haskins (Deane), now deceased, and his wife, Nena Jo Haskins (Haskins), borrowed $80,000 and encumbered their Tattersall property with a trust deed to secure the loan. During their marital dissolution proceedings, Deane transferred his interest in the Tattersall property to Haskins, and Haskins accepted the financial obligations related to that property.

Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Hall asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will dismiss the appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1998, the trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life under California’s “Three Strikes” law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)
“Proposition 36 was passed by the electorate on November 6, 2012, and . . . went into effect the following day. [Citations.] [It] prospectively reduced the punishment previously proscribed for certain defendants convicted of a third strike offense.

In 2007, the victim was 14 years old. During a family gathering, defendant Carlos Victor Zaragoza, who was married to the victim’s cousin, suggested the victim accompany him to a convenience store. On the way, they stopped in a vacant lot. Defendant drank brandy and offered some to the victim. Defendant then forced the victim against a fence, kissed her, and digitally penetrated her vagina. Years later, the victim reported the incident to law enforcement. Law enforcement had the victim place a pretext call to defendant about the incident. Defendant was charged with a single count of sexual penetration by a foreign object by means of force, violence, duress, menace, and fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury. The jury found him guilty.

In any negligence suit, a plaintiff must demonstrate “ ‘a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and [that] the breach [is] the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.’ ” (Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2014) 59 Cal.4th 568, 573.) In this case, plaintiffs Valley Honey, Inc. and Christobal Espinosa (collectively plaintiffs) sued defendant East Bay Municipal Utility District (district) for general negligence after plaintiffs’ property (several beehives) located along or on the banks of a river on others’ lands was destroyed when the district increased water releases from Camanche Dam (the dam). Plaintiffs alleged the district owed them a duty of care to provide prior notification of its decision to increase water releases from the dam. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the district on the element of duty and dismissed plaintiffs’ suit.

K.L. appeals from the April 7, 2022 order of the juvenile court terminating his placement home on probation and ordering him placed at camp for a maximum confinement period of 3 years 10 months. He contends the juvenile court erred because it had already dismissed the Welfare & Institutions Code, section 602 petition then pending against him and there was no pending probation violation petition. (§777.) K.L. further contends the maximum confinement period set by the juvenile court violates section 730, subdivision (a)(2) because it exceeds a three-year commitment. Respondent correctly concedes both errors. Because there was no pending section 777 petition and the juvenile court dismissed the pending section 602 petition, there was no basis for the April 7, 2022 camp placement order. The order also sets an excessive maximum confinement period. Accordingly, we reverse the order dated April 7, 2022.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen Marpet, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

INTRODUCTION
Appellant Cameron G. is the presumed father of T.M. (born April 2012). In August 2020, after Father had been drinking heavily, he and T.M.’s mother engaged in domestic violence in the presence of eight-year-old T.M. Both Mother and T.M. reported that Father grabbed and pushed T.M. when the child tried to intervene.

Manuel Santoyo appeals the denial of a recommendation by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to recall his sentence under former Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to allow him to submit additional information relevant to the recall decision. The Attorney General agrees. We reverse and remand with directions.
 
Factual and Procedural History
In October 2010, appellant pled guilty to one count of attempted murder with the personal use of a firearm. (§§ 664/187, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to 19 years in state prison.