CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Rodney Ian Osman was convicted by a jury of oral copulation of an unconscious person (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (f)). The trial court placed Osman on five years of formal probation on the condition he serve five days in county jail with credit for time served. On appeal Osman contends, citing Evidence Code section 1103, subdivision (c)(4), the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the victim K.T.’s prior sexual relationship with a man to rebut evidence at trial suggesting K.T. would not have initiated physical contact with Osman because she was a lesbian. Osman also contends the prosecutor’s closing argument was misleading. We affirm.

In 2010, restaurant operator Fat Face Fenner’s Falloon (Fat Face) filed a lawsuit against its landlord, Pierside Properties, regarding the condition of the premises and various rental charges. Pierside filed a cross-complaint seeking unpaid rent and termination of Fat Face’s leases. On the opening day of trial, the parties reached a settlement that required Fat Face to pay Pierside $25,000, and forfeit its option to renew its leases.
Fat Face then filed a legal malpractice action against its attorneys, William Clark and defendant Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz & Hogan (LZSH), regarding their handling of the litigation with Pierside.

Defendant Enrico Devon Carter appeals from a postjudgment order denying his request to have his prior felony conviction for transportation of cocaine base either dismissed, vacated, or reduced to a misdemeanor. Defendant contends his conviction should be eligible for redesignation from a felony to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

In this lawsuit alleging the fraudulent transfer of real property, plaintiff Claudia McHenry (Plaintiff) appeals from the judgment issued after a bench trial in favor of defendants Richard A. Lukasko and Alma Lukasko (Defendants). In its statement of decision, the trial court concluded Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. We affirm.

Plaintiff Firuze Hariri (Hariri) brought suit against her neighbors Edwin and Nancy Clock (the Clocks), alleging that the landscaping on their property unreasonably obstructed the views from her property in violation of the Tiburon Municipal Code and in breach of a 1983 agreement resolving a previous dispute between the parties. After a bench trial, the trial court agreed and issued an injunction requiring the Clocks to trim or remove various vegetation planted on their property and on an adjacent right-of-way owned by the Town of Tiburon (the Town). After judgment, Hariri sought to recover her expert witness fees on the basis the Clocks had failed to obtain a “more favorable” judgment than her settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, as well as the costs of an unsuccessful court ordered mediation which she argued was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. The trial entered an order taxing costs and denying Hariri’s requests.

Petitioner M.R. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s order issued at a postpermanent plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3) setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now 15- and 13-year-old daughters (the children). Mother contends her sister and brother-in-law lied to gain legal guardianship of the children and asks for an order granting her reunification services. We conclude mother’s petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition.

Appellant/defendant Rock Anthony Rowland was charged and convicted of animal cruelty (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (a)), for putting his mother’s cat in a clothes dryer, resulting in the animal’s death. The jury also found that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, i.e., the dryer, in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). He was sentenced to the upper term of three years, plus one year for the enhancement, for an aggregate term of four years.
On appeal, defendant argues the deadly weapon enhancement only applies to a crime committed against a human being, and that the jury was improperly instructed on adoptive admissions. He also argues the court should have conducted a hearing regarding complaints he made about his attorney after the jury’s verdict.
We affirm.

On April 15, 2003, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Melvin Ray Ward with one count of assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1). The complaint also alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of sections 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8), and 12022.7, subdivision (a).
On April 22, 2003, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and denied the enhancements. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the parties agreed that the enhancements “shall be dismissed.” Accordingly, the trial court struck both enhancements and sentenced defendant to two years in prison. The abstract of judgment lists the two dismissed enhancements with an “S” next to each enhancement under the column for time imposed.

Defendant and appellant Isaac Jerry Young appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for recall of sentence under Penal Code section 1170.18. We affirm the order without prejudice to filing a new petition pursuant to People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page).

After a mistrial, a second jury convicted Keith Russell Luckett of two counts each of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The jury could not agree on the remaining counts of kidnapping for robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)), resulting in a mistrial on those counts. A third trial resulted in convictions on those counts. The court denied his request for probation and sentencing under section 1170.9 as a United States military veteran suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Luckett contends that the judgment should be reversed and the matter remanded for resentencing. Luckett asserts that the trial court erred in finding he was ineligible for probation because he suffered from PTSD resulting from military service which necessarily showed an unusual circumstance and entitled him to probation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.413(c)(2)(B).

A jury convicted Jason Bradwell Lewis of first degree murder of J.R. (Pen. Code, §187, subd. (a).) He admitted he had two prison priors (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668, 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The court sentenced him to 56 years in prison.

Appointed counsel for defendant Donald Lee Neilson asks this court to review the record to 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.

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

Minor defendant M.H. contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that he committed robbery when he snatched a cell phone from the adult victim’s outstretched hand.
This is indeed a close case. However, as we explain, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution--as the law requires--we find the evidence sufficient. We therefore affirm the judgment.