CA Unpub Decisions

Ajay Mittal (Mittal) appeals from an order denying his request that his marriage be declared a nullity. We affirm.

Respondent Louisa V. Binswanger (Louisa) is the trustee of her mother’s trust, the Garaventa Family Marital Trust (Trust). The Trust names as beneficiaries, among others, Louisa and her four siblings. Louisa sought a determination from the trial court regarding the enforceability of Instructions to the Trustee (Instructions) executed by her mother, Mary C. Garaventa (Mary). Among other things, the Instructions sought to require Mary’s children to indemnify each other, as well as Louisa in her capacity as trustee, for all trust-related claims. Louisa’s sister, appellant Linda Ann Garaventa Colvis (Linda) appeals from the trial court’s order invalidating the Instructions on the basis that the document immunized the trustee from claims more broadly than permitted under California law. Linda contends the court erred in failing to sever the portion of the Instructions regarding claims against the trustee from the remainder of the provision. We reject the claim.

Appellant Isaac Lamaar Montgomery pled no contest to one count of possession of ammunition by a felon, in violation of Penal Code section 30305, subdivision (a) and was placed on probation. He argues the electronic search condition imposed by the trial court is unreasonable because it bears no relation to his offense or future criminality, the condition is unconstitutionally overbroad, and it violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and that his trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to the electronic search condition.
We reject his constitutional challenges because Montgomery failed to object to the condition in the trial court and thereby forfeited the right to argue on appeal the condition is unconstitutional. We further find Montgomery’s trial counsel was not ineffective for not objecting to the search condition, and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Robert Hall appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. The People concede the trial court denied the petition under the authority of the wrong statute, and they agree the matter should be remanded for reconsideration of the petition. We agree, reverse the order, and remand.

Appellant Eduardo Villa Gomez Almanza (Almanza) contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s dual use of facts to both enhance his sentence and impose the aggravated term of imprisonment for his Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) conviction. We affirm.

Daniel Lamas (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of committing lewd acts against D., a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2), sexual penetration of V., a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts 3 & 4), and of committing lewd acts against V., a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 5 & 6). As to counts 1, 2, 5, and 6, the jury further found defendant committed violations of section 288, subdivision (a) against multiple victims. (§ 667.61, subds. (a), (e)(4).) Defendant was sentenced to a total of 65 years to life in prison and ordered to pay restitution, along with various fees, fines, and assessments.

Consumer Services of Walnut Creek, Inc. (Consumer Services) and Michan Evonc (Evonc) (collectively appellants) appeal from a default judgment entered after the trial court (1) denied their motion for protective orders, (2) granted terminating sanctions striking their answer and entering their default as a result of their failure to submit to a deposition and produce documents, and (3) denied their motions for reconsideration of both orders.
Appellants contend the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the motion for terminating sanctions and denied their motions for protective orders and reconsideration. They also contend the compensatory and punitive damages awarded are not supported by substantial evidence. Finding no merit in appellants’ arguments, we affirm the judgment.

Felix Perez Deanda (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of sexual intercourse with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a); counts 3 & 4) and oral copulation with a child 10 years of age or younger (id., subd. (b); counts 5 & 6). He was sentenced to 80 years to life in prison, and ordered to pay various fines. On appeal, he contends reversal is required because the trial court erroneously denied his Batson-Wheeler motion. We disagree and affirm.

During a brawl involving members of two neighboring families, appellant Edgardo Acosta shot a combatant in the shoulder with a small handgun, and a bullet struck appellant’s own 13-year-old daughter, M.A., in her forehead. Both victims recovered from their wounds. At trial, appellant contended that he fired the gun in defense of another. A jury found him not guilty of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 1), but guilty of the lesser included charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter (§§ 664/192, subd. (a); count 1) and guilty of child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a); count 2). The jury found true that he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon both victims (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and he used a firearm in both crimes (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Finally, as to both victims, the jury found him not guilty of either assault with a firearm or simple assault (§§ 245, subd. (a)(2), 240; counts 3 & 4).

Plaintiffs and respondents Juan Luis Lepe, Virgilio Flores-Juarez, and Berna Vargas (collectively referred to as plaintiffs) initiated this action against their former employer, alleging unpaid overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other Labor Code violations and unfair business practices, from May 2010 through May 2014. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants and appellants Luft Enterprises, a California Corporation, doing business as Inn-Decor (the Company) and Otmar Luft (collectively, defendants). Defendants challenge the judgment, contending (1) they may not be compelled, as a matter of law, to pay past wages allegedly due because plaintiffs were not legally authorized to work in the United States; (2) there is insufficient evidence that defendants issued inaccurate wage statements; (3) the trial court erroneously granted plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees motion; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in awardin

After briefing had been completed in this case, the California Supreme Court definitively ruled on the sole issue raised in this appeal. (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 (Lara).) Lara held the requirement in Proposition 57, passed by voters on November 8, 2016 — that all criminal charges against juveniles be initially filed in the juvenile court — is retroactively applicable to cases such as the instant one that are not yet final. (Id. at pp. 303–304.) We thus conditionally vacate the judgment and remand to the juvenile court to determine if minor defendant Anthony E. is fit for juvenile adjudication, to set a disposition hearing if so, and to reinstate the judgment if not.

Evelyn G. (Mother), mother of X.G. (Child), appeals from an order following a 12 month permanency hearing at which the juvenile court terminated Mother's reunification services and granted full legal and physical custody to Juan Carlos G., Child's presumed father (Father). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f).) Mother contends the court erred when it found that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) provided or offered her reasonable services. We disagree and affirm the order.

Nathan H. Velazquez pleaded guilty to possession of metal knuckles (Pen. Code, § 21810). The remaining counts were dismissed. The court granted immediate sentencing and granted Velazquez probation to the court.
One of the conditions of probation (condition 8j) is a general Fourth Amendment waiver, which includes an electronic search term. Velazquez timely objected to the condition on the grounds there was no nexus between the crime and the electronic search condition. The trial court overruled the objection.
Velazquez appeals contending the search condition is invalid under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). The People first claim forfeiture and on the merits, argue the condition is appropriate for the appellant's supervision on probation.

Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Majestic Asset Management, LLC (Majestic), Wintech Development, Inc. (Wintech), and cross-defendants Jen Huang and Hai Huang (together Plaintiffs) appeal a judgment in favor of defendant and cross-complainant the Colony at California Oaks Homeowners Association (Association). The Colony at California Oaks (the Colony) is a gated senior community of 1,586 homes in Murrieta, which community was developed around an 18-hole golf course (Golf Course Property) in the late 1990's. The Colony is governed by the Association and is subject to an amended and restated declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's).
In 2004 and 2005, Ryland Golf Course at the Colony, Inc. (Ryland), then-owner of seven holes of the Golf Course Property, was negotiating the sale of that property to Pacific Golf Enterprises, LLC (Pacific).