CA Unpub Decisions

Greyhound is a film set during World War II and stars Tom Hanks.
In July 2017, Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisition Inc. (Sony) entered into a “co-financing and distribution” agreement for Greyhound (the Greyhound Agreement) with a Chinese company called Zhengfu Pictures Limited (Zhengfu). Under the Greyhound Agreement, Sony and Zhengfu agreed that (1) each would contribute money toward the production of the film, (2) each would collect “certain additional revenues” from the film, (3) each would own a share of the film’s copyrights, and (4) Zhengfu would have a 15-year exclusive license to distribute the film in mainland China as well as the right to negotiate for the right to distribute the film in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau.
The only person Sony dealt with on behalf of Zhengfu was Alex Zhang (Zhang). Consistent with his primary role, Zhang was listed as an “executive producer” during the end credits of the Greyhound film.

Mother and M.A. (father) married in 2009, and divorced in 2014.
L.S. was born in July 2010.
After a protracted custody battle in family court, the trial court found that mother was willfully impeding father’s ability to bond with L.S. and, on that basis, awarded father full legal and physical custody of L.S. That order was affirmed on appeal. (Aadam v. Suttle (June 27, 2016, B263894) [nonpub. opn.].)
In late 2018, mother repeatedly reported to doctors and law enforcement that L.S. was being abused while in father’s custody; specifically, mother reported that father was feeding L.S. foods to which L.S. had severe allergic reactions and that father’s new wife was striking L.S. None of this was true. Instead, mother was instructing L.S. to lie to the doctors, law enforcement officials and social workers who interviewed him; when he resisted, mother yelled at him.

In October 2018, about a week before her 18th birthday, C.K. reported to police that her father, Ke, sexually abused her.
At the preliminary hearing in November 2018, C.K. testified that Ke forced her to have vaginal, oral, and anal sex with him on numerous occasions, starting when she was 15 years old. Ke’s attorney cross-examined her at the preliminary hearing.
On March 18, 2019, the court set a trial date of March 28. The case was continued several times until trial began on November 9, 2020.
On March 19, 2019, district attorney investigator Dewayne Eldridge was assigned to locate C.K. and serve her with a subpoena for trial. Between March 2019 and October 22, 2020, he attempted to find her by “constantly” searching law enforcement and social media databases and by speaking to persons connected to her.
On approximately March 20, 2019, Eldridge went to C.K.’s residence in Rosemead but received no response.

1. Permit Requirements Under the California Coastal Act and the Los Angeles Municipal Code

Construction within the Coastal Zone requires a Coastal Permit from the City. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30600, subd. (b); Los Angeles Municipal Code, § 12.20.2, subd. C.) Moreover, in certain areas, referred to as dual permit jurisdictions, an applicant must also obtain a second permit from the California Coastal Commission. (§ 30600, 30601; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13301, subd. (a).) Property located within 100 feet of a wetland qualifies as a dual jurisdiction zone. (§§ 30601, 30601(2); LAMC, § 2.20.2, subds. C & G.1.) Further, when proposed construction on a parcel is “not permitted by right” under the controlling zoning classification, the project cannot proceed without a CUP granted by the City. (LAMC, § 12.24.)

On January 14, 2021, we affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant and appellant Robert Leon’s Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437) and Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing. On March 24, 2021, the California Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review. On January 26, 2022, the Supreme Court transferred the cause back with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Senate Bill 775) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) and People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 (Lewis). Having reconsidered the cause and concluded that defendant remains ineligible for relief as a matter of law, we affirm.

Micklon’s probation report provides the following factual background, which we need only briefly summarize. While police were on patrol, they noticed a vehicle slowly drive past them. Police followed the vehicle to perform a “records check” because it was the only vehicle driving through an evacuated area and because police had been receiving calls of looting in the area. When police conducted a traffic stop, the vehicle slowly drove to the side of the road and then proceeded into the abutting vegetation; the driver then exited the vehicle and fled on foot.
Police lost sight of the suspect during the foot pursuit, but later noticed headlights turn on from another truck, and assisting officers noticed another truck drive in the opposite direction. When that other truck, a Ford F150, failed to pull over after police activated their lights, the driver “hid[] his face” as police drove by. This caused police to turn around and follow that vehicle.

In February 2018, Napa Police Detective Garrett Wade registered appellant as a sex offender in Napa County. During his initial interview, appellant reported that he was transient, and that he was living in his car at a Walmart parking lot. Because appellant was a transient, Detective Wade was required to reregister appellant as a sex offender every 30 days. (See § 290.011, subd. (b).) Between February 2018 and January 2021, appellant complied with his registration obligations, and reported that he continued to live as a transient.
On January 19, 2021, appellant had an appointment to update his registration. At the time, Detective Wade was registering people over the phone because of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the morning of January 19, a police records specialist called appellant in advance of his appointment with Wade. Appellant reported that his brother had died and he was on a train to Chicago. When Wade called appellant later that day, appellant did not answer.

On November 6, 2020, McNamara was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). The arresting officer drove McNamara to a friend’s house and issued a citation. McNamara signed the citation, thereby agreeing, “without admitting guilt,” to appear at an arraignment on December 8, 2020. (Boldface and capitalization omitted.)
Ten days after his arrest, but before the DUI arraignment, McNamara sought to terminate his probation in two separate misdemeanor cases. In an accompanying handwritten declaration, which he signed under penalty of perjury, McNamara stated he had “had no trouble with the law in the last 2 years 9 months or problems with probation.”
After McNamara was arraigned on the DUI charges, the Mendocino County District Attorney charged him with perjury, a felony, based on the theory that the declaration’s statement that he had “had no trouble with the law” in almost three years was false. A preliminary hearing on the perjury charge was held in May 2021.

Appellant Emanuel O. Cuenca appeals from two final judgments in this consolidated matter—the first following a violation of probation hearing where his probation was terminated, and the second following a jury trial where he was found guilty of assault under Penal Code section 240. Cuenca’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to the holding in that case, we order the trial court to correct an error made in the sentencing order in connection with the violation of probation but otherwise affirm the judgments.
A. Violation of Probation Case (CR183992)
On June 28, 2017, police responded to a report that a male, later identified as Cuenca, had assaulted a female on the street. The female, S.C., later told the police that she and Cuenca were sitting in Cuenca’s truck in a parking lot, when his “temper flared.” He told S.C. to get out of his truck, which she did.

The People charged Robinson with a nine-count amended information, alleging multiple sentencing enhancements, for his involvement in two incidents. The first occurred on March 9, 2017, when Robinson became involved in a verbal altercation with the victim. The victim testified that Robinson slapped her, then she pushed or hit him in response, at which point Robinson said he would shoot her and walked off. The victim then heard gunshots, one of which flew past her face. The victim thereafter hid in her room, and Robinson banged on its window.
The hotel manager (in whose hotel the incident took place) testified that he saw the victim punch Robinson and that he then he separated the two, at which point Robinson returned with a gun, and fired his gun at a wall (although not in the direction of the victim).
The second incident took place on June 9, 2017, and occurred at Robinson’s residence.

Steve Smith is the president of SSE, which assists schools and school districts in obtaining reimbursements for state-mandated education costs. The district is a California public high school district. In 2005, the district and SSE entered into a written contract under which SSE would assist the district in seeking reimbursement for state-mandated education costs. Before turning to the procedural history of this case, we briefly outline the law governing reimbursement of state mandates.
A. Law Governing Reimbursement of State Mandates
When the Legislature or any state agency requires a local government entity (such as the district) to provide a “new program or a higher level of service,” the state Constitution mandates that the state provide the entity financial aid or reimbursement. (Cal. Const., art. XIII B, § 6, subd. (a) (section 6).)

The Brokaws filed the underlying lawsuit against Morey and Upton, LLP, who represented them in an earlier lawsuit arising out of personal injuries sustained by Dennis. In this lawsuit, Bonnie, through her counsel, filed a 2018 request to dismiss her claim without prejudice, which the trial court clerk entered immediately.
In 2018 and 2021, respectively, Bonnie twice unsuccessfully moved to vacate her voluntary dismissal.2 The trial court also denied the Brokaws' subsequent
motion for reconsideration based on Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a). (All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Relevant here, a notice of entry of the court's denial of the second motion to vacate was served on the Brokaws on August 30, 2021, followed two months later by service of the notice of the order denying reconsideration on November 5.
The Brokaws filed their notice of appeal on December 30, 2021.

Defendant pleaded no contest to felony hit and run with injury in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (a) and admitted a prior prison term enhancement as part of a negotiated plea agreement pursuant to which he was sentenced to a term of five years’ imprisonment. In defendant’s initial appeal, our court struck the prior prison term in light of the passage of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) and remanded for further proceedings regarding the plea agreement.
On August 5, 2021, the trial court held a hearing following the issuance of the remittitur in the direct appeal. The court struck the Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement and ordered defendant’s sentence to be reduced by one year.

On October 15, 2018, defendant stole merchandise from a department store in Fresno. After exiting the store, and while attempting to leave the area, defendant had a physical altercation with the store’s loss prevention officer. Defendant eventually fled but left behind a purse containing her driver’s license. Police arrested her three weeks later.
Defendant was charged by information with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5; count 1) and petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction (§§ 484, 666; count 2). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) In April 2021, after a long series of delays, the charges were tried before a jury. Defendant was convicted on both counts.
On June 18, 2021, defendant was granted probation. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence for a period of three years. Defendant’s notice of appeal was filed on June 23, 2021.