CA Unpub Decisions

Boris Washington, a Sergeant with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), appeals from a judgment denying his Petition for Writ of Mandate seeking to overturn the decision of an LAPD Board of Rights (the Board) to suspend him for 10 days without pay. The Board found that Washington violated an LAPD policy requiring officers to call for emergency medical care whenever a detainee requests it. Washington contends that: (1) the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing the Board’s decision; (2) the evidence is not sufficient to support that decision; and (3) the LAPD policy in question violates due process by failing to provide fair notice about what constitutes an “emergency” and how much time an officer has to call for emergency medical care after receiving a request for such care. We disagree with all three contentions and therefore affirm.

On behalf of his 90-year-old mother, one brother sued another brother for financial elder abuse in pressuring her to give the latter brother money, including through harassing telephone calls. After the close of evidence, the trial court allowed the suing brother to seek damages for mental suffering, as well as for financial abuse. The court awarded $100,000 for mental suffering, but no damages for financial harm. On appeal, the losing brother argues that the court erred in allowing the suing brother to use transcripts of telephone conversations recorded in violation of Penal Code section 632 to inform the psychology expert’s opinion and to impeach the losing brother’s testimony. He also argues that the court erred in allowing the amendment to conform to proof. We conclude the trial court did not err, and affirm.

Lino Jesus Acero (defendant) walked into an AM/PM Mini-Mart in 1994 and demanded that the clerk empty the register; when the clerk refused, defendant pulled out a gun, shot him in the chest, and fled in a waiting car. Defendant was 17 years old at the time. More than 20 years later, defendant was charged with, and convicted of, murdering the store clerk, and was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole.

S.D., a mother with a history of chronic drug abuse, petitions for extraordinary relief to overturn an order entered at a six-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 concerning her two young sons, one-year old J.D. and two-and-a-half year old B.E. She contends the juvenile court’s finding that she was provided reasonable services is not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that it is, and deny her petition.

In this appeal, R.S. (Minor) challenges a dispositional order imposing a probation condition that allows warrantless searches of his electronic devices and requires him to provide his passwords. Minor contends that the electronics search condition is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) and unconstitutionally overbroad, and that the juvenile court erred in imposing it. We agree that the condition is unconstitutionally overbroad, and will modify the judgment to strike this condition.

Plaintiff Rebecca Von Behren (plaintiff) appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant Estate of Raymond H. Davison (sometimes referred to as “the Estate”), based on the statute of limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 (hereafter “section 366.2”). We reverse. The limitations period prescribed by section 366.2, which requires actions against a decedent to be brought within one year from the date of death, does not apply to claims for which the decedent carried insurance. (Prob. Code, § 550 et seq.)

This timely appeal is from a judgment and sentence to state prison entered upon the defendant’s pleas of no contest to seven felonies (six first degree burglaries, one attempted first degree burglary), his admission of an enhancement allegation applicable to all the felonies, and his admission that he had a prior conviction that qualified as a so-called strike according to the Three Strikes law. Twenty-six other charges of first degree burglary were dismissed. Defendant was ultimately sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 34 years and eight months. The only issue on appeal is the validity of the restitution order, specifically, whether restitution was properly ordered for the victims of the dismissed counts.
The essential terms of the negotiated disposition between defendant Johnny Fobbs and the prosecution were spelled out in a “Declaration Concerning a Plea or Change of Plea.”

Following a jury trial, appellant Jesus Antonio Sarabia was convicted of leaving the scene of a fatal accident and filing a false police report. Later, after the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges, appellant entered an open plea to vehicular manslaughter, admitting the attendant flight enhancement, and to reckless driving. The trial court sentenced appellant to seven years in state prison. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel submitted a declaration stating that he notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Counsel also advised appellant of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention.

A jury found defendant Charles Albert Kesselring guilty of evading a police officer; vehicle theft; carjacking involving the personal use of a deadly weapon; second degree robbery involving the personal use of a deadly weapon; making criminal threats involving the personal use of a deadly weapon; and assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court found true allegations that defendant had two prior felony convictions. Defendant does not challenge the validity of these convictions or enhancement findings. His appeal puts at issue only certain aspects of his aggregate sentence of 15 years and 8 months. All of defendant’s contentions are founded on Penal Code section 654, subdivision (a), which provides: “An act or omission that is punishable by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.”

Appellant Master Plumbing and Sewer (Master Plumbing) brought suit to recover money owed on invoices for the repair and replacement of a sewer line at a residential condominium. Respondent Fountaine West Condominium Owners Association (Fountaine West) and an individual unit owner cross-complained against Master Plumbing alleging, among others causes of action, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, negligence and breach of contract. After a seven-day bench trial, the trial court issued a detailed 22-page statement of decision, and a judgment entirely in favor of Master Plumbing, including that Fountaine West had breached its contract. Fountaine West then filed a motion to vacate the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663a, challenging the award of attorney fees to Master Plumbing, the undisputed prevailing party. The trial court granted the motion to vacate and entered an amended judgment denying Master Plumbing attorney fees.

Defendant Agnet Tauaalo appeals from a judgment entered after she pleaded no contest to two counts of theft or embezzlement of more than $950 from an elder or dependent adult (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d) - counts 1 and 2). Defendant also admitted the allegations that in committing the offenses, she took, damaged or destroyed property exceeding $200,000 (Pen. Code, § 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)) and that the offenses constituted a pattern of related felony conduct of taking more than $500,000 (Pen. Code, § 186.11, subd. (a)(1), (2)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year term, which consisted of four years in county jail and two years on mandatory supervision. On appeal, defendant contends the trial erred when it imposed a criminal justice administration fee (booking fee) of $259.50. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Eric Wilford, James Nielsen, and others filed an action for investor fraud against defendants and cross-complainants Surf N Turf Paradiso, LLC (Surf N Turf), Surf Lagoons, Inc. (Surf Lagoons), their principals, defendants Michael Ruffner and Jourdan Groves, and others in an effort to recover $905,000 plaintiffs invested in a San Clemente development slated to include a miniature golf course, artificial wave pool, and food service facility (the project). The City of San Clemente (the City) owns the property. In response to the investor fraud action, Surf N Turf and Surf Lagoons filed a tort and breach of contract cross-complaint against Wilford and Nielsen. They also named the city as a cross-defendant, adding a cause of action for violation of the Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.).

Appellant Charles Albert Compton pled no contest to two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). On appeal, he contends that the court erred in imposing a restitution fine pursuant to section 294, subdivision (b). We find merit to this contention and modify the judgment accordingly.

Appellant Maurice Dewayne Hunt filed an application for reduction of felony conviction pursuant to Proposition 47, seeking reduction of a Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) felony conviction to a misdemeanor. Hunt contends the trial court erred when it denied his application on the grounds a section 10851 conviction was statutorily ineligible for relief. In light of People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175, 1189 (Page), concluding section 10851 convictions are not statutorily ineligible for relief under Proposition 47, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.