CA Unpub Decisions

Robert Yates appeals from a $1 judgment entered against him and in favor of respondent Agar, Inc. after a jury trial. He raises numerous contentions on appeal about why that judgment should be reversed, but he has failed to provide an adequate record for us to engage in a meaningful review of them. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Kerrie Reilly lives with her severely disabled adult daughter in housing subsidized by the Marin Housing Authority (MHA). The family participates in the Housing Choice Voucher program, commonly known as Section 8, which MHA administers according to the rules and regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As a Section 8 participant, Kerrie Reilly receives a monthly rent subsidy, or “housing assistance payment,” the size of which varies depending on her income.
The Reillys also participate in a state social services program designed to help incapacitated persons avoid institutionalization. The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program compensates those who provide care for aged, blind, or disabled individuals incapable of caring for themselves. (Norasingh v. Lightbourne (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 740, 744 (Norasingh).)

This appeal arises from the dissolution of the marriage between Alvin Kwong Ma and Sun Young Moon. Ma appeals from a judgment dividing certain community property assets and ordering him to pay child support to Moon. He contends: (1) the family court erroneously reversed a prior order and required him to refinance or sell certain real property in order to remove Moon from the mortgage on that property; (2) the child support order must be reversed because there was no substantial evidence his current income exceeded the amount set forth in his most recent income and expense declaration and the forensic accountant appointed by the court acted as Moon’s expert rather than a neutral advisor to the court; and (3) the court erred in excluding evidence showing he was entitled to reimbursement for separate property funds used to purchase community property assets. We affirm.

Luciano and Anna Fiorani created the The Fiorani Living Trust (Trust) to provide for their adult developmentally disabled daughter. Respondent Ronald Mazzaferro was removed as trustee of the Trust by the probate court, and his mother, Edith Mazzaferri, was appointed as successor trustee. (See Mazzaferri v. Mazzaferro (Nov. 9, 2011, A131261) [nonpub. opn.].) William Parisi is the conservator for the Fioranis’ daughter. Trust assets included a two-unit building on Filbert Street in San Francisco (the Property), as well as bank and investment accounts. (See Parisi v. Lotchk Corp. (June 10, 2013, A135121) [nonpub. opn.].)
For well over a decade, the parties to this matter have been embroiled in contentious litigation over control of Trust assets and other ancillary intrafamily disputes. Relevant to the dispute here is an April 2014 settlement agreement (Settlement) regarding two consolidated actions against Mazzaferro and others.

Defendant Ronald Salter was convicted after a jury trial of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187a, 189) arising from the violent shooting death on the streets of Oakland, California of a young man 13 years his junior who lived in defendant’s neighborhood, 17-year-old Anthony Custard.
Defendant raises three issues on appeal. We reject all three contentions and affirm Salter’s judgment of conviction.

Defendant Alexandria Esparza was granted probation after she pleaded no contest to use of personal identifying information without authorization (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a) - count 1) and possession of a forged driver’s license (Pen. Code, § 470b - count 4). On appeal, she contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed probation conditions relating to substance abuse. We affirm the order.

Plaintiff Susan Bassi filed a complaint for professional negligence against defendants James Butera and McCahan, Helfrick, Thiercof and Butera Accountancy Corporation (MHT&B). The trial court denied defendants’ motion to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16). Defendants contend: the trial court erred in concluding that Bassi’s complaint was not based on protected activity; and Bassi failed to show a probability of prevailing on her complaint. We reverse.

Defendant Matthew James Graham was found guilty by a jury of one count of possession or control of child pornography with a prior conviction. (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (b).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegations that Graham had suffered eight prior convictions for serious or violent felonies and two prior prison commitments. The trial court granted Graham’s Romero motion as to all but one of his prior strike convictions. Graham was sentenced to a total term of 14 years in prison, consisting of the middle term of six years (doubled to 12 years) plus consecutive one year terms on each of the prison prior commitments.
On appeal, Graham raises the following claims of error

A jury convicted defendant Luis Manuel Ortiz of one count of conspiracy to sell methamphetamine, three counts of selling methamphetamine, and other related drug crimes. The jury also found true a gang allegation as to each conviction.
The trial court imposed a punishment for the conspiracy count and for each of the three sales counts. Defendant contends that his sentence violates the statutory proscription against multiple punishments. (Pen. Code, § 654.) We disagree. The conspiracy to sell methamphetamine lasted nearly a year and included hundreds of transactions, many more than three sales convictions for which defendant was punished.
Defendant also contends that his abstract of judgment incorrectly labels the conspiracy conviction as a violent felony. The conspiracy conviction was definitely not a violent felony. (See § 667.5, subd. (c).) The Attorney General agrees.
We affirm the judgment. We also order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment.

Petitioner Richard G. (father) in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s order issued at a 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) setting a section 366.26 hearing as to his three children, now ranging in age from six to nine years (collectively, the children). We conclude father’s writ petition is facially inadequate for review and dismiss it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452.)

Appointed counsel for defendant Mario Anthony McGill asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we consider whether the trial court properly denied defendant’s petitions/applications for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. We conclude it did and we find no other arguable issues on appeal.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On March 1, 2013, in case No. BF146594A, the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant with willfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)). Various other allegations were inc

Appellant Heriberto Rodriguez Gonzalez pled no contest to oral copulation with a minor (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd., (b)(1); count 2) and first degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (a); count 5) and he admitted an allegation that a person was present in the residence during the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Carlton Lemar McDade asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we conclude we must dismiss the appeal.
We provide the following brief description of the history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On October 23, 2015, in the middle of his jury trial, defendant failed to appear. The trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
On October 26, 2015, the jury found defendant guilty of three robberies and one attempted robbery. On December 17, 2015, the trial court sentenced him in absentia to 18 years four months.
On December 21, 2015, defense counsel filed a notice of appeal. We assigned the case No. F072932.

Following an incident in which a group of young men attacked and beat a 56-year-old man into unconsciousness, defendant Andrew Eduvijes Raygoza was arrested and charged with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a))1 (count 1) and assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) (count 2). Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of both counts. The jury also found true the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) attached to both counts, but was unable to reach a verdict on the allegation the attempted murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated (§ 189).