CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Kentraill Webb appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale on two different dates, and found true various sentencing enhancements. At trial, defendant admitted possession of the methamphetamine; the issue at trial was whether that possession was for personal use or sale. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting, among five prior convictions, evidence of three unsanitized felony drug-sale convictions.

Appellant Anthony James Scott (appellant) was convicted by a jury of special circumstance murder, among other charges, in connection with a home invasion robbery. Appellant contends reversal is warranted due to insufficient evidence, errors in evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. We find none of these grounds warrant reversal. However, we remand the case to the trial court for resentencing. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Plaintiff and appellant Janus Friis filed an action against defendant and respondent Maria Louise Joensen seeking the return of an engagement ring and other gifts given in contemplation of marriage. The trial court granted Joensen’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, finding the matter to be more appropriately heard in Denmark. Subsequently, the trial court denied Friis’s motion to vacate the dismissal order on the basis that it was procured through extrinsic fraud. Friis challenges both rulings.
We find Denmark is a suitable alternative forum and the trial court properly weighed the relevant interests. However, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing, rather than staying, the action. Accordingly, we modify the forum non conveniens order and judgment so that they stay the action. We affirm the order and judgment as modified. We also affirm the trial court’s order denying Friis’s motion to vacate.

The trial court granted defendant and respondent Gerald N. Silver’s demurrer to plaintiff and appellant Jose Flores’s legal malpractice, breach of contract, and fraud causes of action in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) without leave to amend. The trial court found that plaintiff’s allegations revealed that his claims were time-barred and dismissed the case. We agree and affirm.

Defendants and appellants Lou Bermudez and Practice Sales & Appraisals, LLC (sometimes collectively Bermudez defendants) and defendant and appellant Marlene Leiva (Leiva) appeal from the trial court’s denial of their anti-SLAPP motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP statute). Defendants sought to strike the Doe amendment adding Leiva as a defendant to the fourth cause of action for legal malpractice in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) of plaintiffs and respondents Dr. Marc Chemla, D.D.S. and Marc Chemla, D.D.S., Inc. (sometimes collectively the Chemla plaintiffs).
The Chemla plaintiffs alleged that Leiva is Lou Bermudez’s wife and the Bermudez defendants’ in-house counsel when the Bermudez defendants brokered the sale of the Chemla plaintiffs’ dental practice to John M. Chaves, D.D.S. and his two professional corporations (the Chaves buyers).

This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of Gary Kline’s two hip surgeries. The hip is a ball and socket joint; a total hip replacement involves replacing both with components that mimic the ball and socket. In May 2007, plaintiff Kline underwent a total hip replacement, which included implantation of the Durom Acetabular Component (Durom Cup), a component manufactured by defendant Zimmer, Inc. (Zimmer). The Durom Cup, a metal component, was implanted around another metal component and was fixated in Kline’s body without screws. The Durom Cup replaced the acetabulum, i.e., the socket portion of the hip joint. Kline claims that the Durom Cup was defective.

Julio Villa was struck by a car late at night as he was walking along State Highway 12. At issue here is whether the trial court properly sustained a demurrer to Villa’s complaint against the City of Santa Rosa (the City) premised on an alleged failure to provide and maintain adequate street lighting in the vicinity of the accident. The trial court correctly applied settled law to conclude Villa failed to state a cause of action against the City, so we affirm.

Jesse Lin Antolin (appellant) appeals from an order revoking his mandatory supervision and requiring him to return to county jail to serve out the remainder of his term for his conviction of possessing methamphetamine for sale under Health and Safety Code section 11378, which included enhancements for prior narcotics sales convictions under former section 11370.2, subdivision (c). Appellate counsel originally filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, asking this court to independently review the record for arguable issues on appeal. We requested supplemental briefing on the issue discussed in this opinion, namely, whether recent amendments to section 11370.2 apply retroactively and require a modification of appellant’s sentence. Having considered the supplemental briefing submitted by the parties, we affirm.

Defendant Christopher Samuel Niu appeals an order denying his petition to reduce a felony drug conviction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18, a provision of Proposition 47. Niu’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel also informed Niu of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Niu did not file one. We dismiss the appeal as abandoned because Niu is not entitled to Wende review.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs Traci Pittman and R. Frederick Caspersen, trustees of The Traci Pittman Trust (Pittman Trust), from an order denying Pittman’s motion to join the post judgment motion by defendants Jack L. Cox (Cox), Debbie Harrison, and Kerri Vau, as an individual and trustee of the Vau trusts (Vau), to apportion their fees and costs in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 874.010 and 874.040. This motion followed the settlement of the lawsuit filed by Pittman (plaintiff) and Caspersen, as trustees of The Pittman Trust, seeking the partition of a number of properties jointly owned by the parties and for accountings. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion, including her request for fees and costs incurred in the partition lawsuit, on the ground that “joinder is not the appropriate method to bring this request before the court.”

Omar Lamont Williams and Michael Keith Madison (collectively, “appellants”) appeal from a judgment sentencing them to prison after a jury convicted them of several counts arising out of a sexual assault. They contend: (1) the judgment must be reversed because the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse six African-American jurors in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler); (2) the trial court erroneously admitted evidence the victim had told a nurse that Williams was a pimp; and (3) their 25-year-to life sentences under the One Strike law for one of the counts must be vacated because the operative pleading did not include a One Strike allegation for that count.

Appellant Antonio Andre Mouton appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury trial, in which he was found guilty of residential burglaries and sexual offenses involving two separate victims (Does I and II). The trial court sentenced Mouton to 32 years to life in state prison. On appeal, he argues the trial court prejudicially erred by denying his motion to sever the counts pertaining to Doe I from the counts relating to Doe II; that an impermissibly suggestive lineup violated his due process rights; that the prosecution violated its Brady obligation by a late disclosure of certain exculpatory evidence; that prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument violated his rights to due process and a fair trial; and that cumulative error requires reversal. We affirm the judgment.

J.C., the mother of three-year-old S.M., has filed a petition for extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s January 4, 2018 order denying reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s jurisdictional findings; alternatively, she contends that the denial of reunification services constituted an abuse of the court’s discretion, because the evidence showed that those services would be in the child’s best interest. We will deny the petition.

A jury convicted defendant Don Tran of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, sending harmful matter to a minor, and indecent exposure. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the harmful matter conviction, and he argues that the sentence for that conviction should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment.