CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found Francisco L. Vea guilty of one count of transportation of a controlled substance for sale—cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) with the further finding that the weight of the cocaine exceeded one kilogram (§ 11370.4, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced Vea to prison for six years.

Defendant Charles Marshall appeals from a judgment following a bench trial in favor of plaintiffs Nick and Melissa Voyvodich on their complaint for legal malpractice. Marshall contends the trial court erred by not requiring expert testimony on negligence and causation; applying the wrong causation standards; determining damages incorrectly; and failing to exclude evidence of his suspension from the California State Bar. Marshall did not provide a reporter's transcript or adequate substitute, so our review is limited accordingly. We find no merit in his contentions, and we affirm.

G.R. (father) and W.Q. (mother), parents of the minor A.R., challenge the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26 & 395.) The parents collectively contend the juvenile court and the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Finding merit in the parents’ claim, we will reverse and remand for further proceedings to comply with the ICWA.

Defendant Robert Albert Johnson purports to appeal from an order dismissing his postjudgment motion to modify his sentence by vacating or reducing the $10,000 restitution fine.
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We shall dismiss the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order.

When appellant, R.E.W. II, father, and S.A., mother, ended their relationship in 2005, father moved to Ohio and mother and the couple’s two children stayed in Sacramento with M.A., the maternal grandmother. In 2014, the probate court established a guardianship over the children and it named the maternal grandmother as their guardian (Guardian). In 2015, father petitioned to terminate the guardianship so he could move the children to Ohio. The probate court denied the petition.
Before us, father contends the probate court abused its discretion when it denied his petition.

In this consolidated appeal, defendant Steven Kezma Samra challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion brought pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11361.8 (one of the statutes enacted in 2016 as part of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, Proposition 64) to redesignate and dismiss his felony conviction for using a minor to sell marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361; unless otherwise stated, statutory section references that follow are to the Health and Safety Code). He also challenges the trial court’s partial denial of his motion to redesignate and dismiss his felony conviction for cultivation of marijuana (§ 11358) under section 11361.8. We affirm the trial court’s orders.

Defendant Eric James Piona retrieved a car he did not own from the valet at a casino after he found the victim’s valet ticket. He pleaded no contest to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) As part of the plea agreement, he agreed to waive a jury trial on a prior strike allegation, which was based on a 2011 conviction in Pennsylvania for witness intimidation. At a subsequent court trial on the strike allegation, the trial court determined the Pennsylvania conviction constituted a serious felony under Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(37), the intimidation of victims or witnesses in violation of section 136.1. The court therefore found the strike true, and sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison, doubled to 32 months based on the strike.

The City of Sunnyvale (the City) as the successor agency to its former redevelopment agency, and also in its own right (collectively, Sunnyvale), brought a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against Michael Cohen, as Director of the California Department of Finance (Finance) and Emily Harrison, as the Auditor-Controller of the County of Santa Clara, challenging two Finance decisions made during the dissolution and wind-down of the City’s former redevelopment agency (former RDA). In the first, Finance disapproved two items on the recognized obligation payment schedule related to a 1977 contract between the former RDA and the City. In the second, Finance rejected two payments the former RDA made to the City under the same contract, concluding the 1977 contract did not create an enforceable obligation; the payment transfers were unlawful and had to be returned. The trial court denied the petition. Sunnyvale filed a timely appeal.

In June 2017, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant Moammar Ameen Cook (defendant) in a six-count amended information with injuring a spouse, cohabitant, or girlfriend (count 1), assault with a deadly weapon (count 2), two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (counts 4 and 5 ), dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime (count 6), and second degree robbery (count 7). The charges were predicated on evidence defendant physically abused his then-girlfriend on two occasions, including one instance in which he took her phone and drove with her on the hood of his car before stopping abruptly and causing her to fall.
The jury convicted defendant of simple assault (a lesser included offense of count 4) and petty theft (a lesser included offense of count 7) and acquitted him of all other counts.

Kendra B., (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights. She argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to reinstate reunification services as to one of her three sons. She also claims there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that her youngest sons were adoptable. Finding no merit in mother’s contentions, we affirm.

These consolidated appeals involve two children, K.A. and Ryan A. (Ryan), who have the same father, defendant and appellant R.A. (Father). In prior opinions, we affirmed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that both K.A. and Ryan are children described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. (In re K.A. (Jun. 22, 2017, B277442) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Ryan A. (Aug. 4, 2017, B277430) [nonpub. opn.]). When the juvenile court made its jurisdictional findings, it ordered informal supervision instead of declaring the children dependents of the court. Approximately six months after the jurisdictional hearing, however, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department or DCFS) filed petitions asserting the order for informal supervision had been ineffective in protecting the children’s welfare. The Department asked the juvenile court to declare the children dependents of the court and to impose new dispositional obligations on Father.

The prosecution presented substantial evidence defendant, Arturo Manzanero, gunned down an unarmed victim as the victim attempted to flee. The jury rejected defendant’s self-defense claim and convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) (count 1) and firearm possession by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2). The jury found a firearm enhancement allegation true (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and a gang benefit allegation not true. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) Defendant admitted two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). At the prosecution’s request, the trial court stayed the sentence on count 2 (§ 654) and dismissed three prior separate prison term enhancement allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 100 years to life in state prison plus 10 years.

A jury found defendant and appellant Gaspar Medina (defendant), who was charged with murder, guilty only of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. In light of the instructions given during trial, the jury apparently believed defendant actually but unreasonably believed he needed to use deadly force when fatally stabbing 59-year-old victim Gregory Aggers (Aggers). Defendant asks us to decide whether the evidence he acted unreasonably is sufficient to sustain his conviction for the lesser offense.

Plaintiff and respondent Anthony Nguyen filed a class action lawsuit against his former employer, defendant and appellant Inter-Coast International Training, Inc. (Inter-Coast), alleging various wage and hour claims on behalf of himself and other current and former Inter-Coast employees. Inter-Coast subsequently revised its employee handbook to add an arbitration provision, which many potential members of the class signed during the pendency of the suit. After the court certified the class, Inter-Coast filed a motion to compel arbitration of the claims of the class members who signed the arbitration provision. Plaintiffs—Nguyen, later-added named plaintiff Cheryl Alexander, and the rest of the class—opposed the motion, arguing that the arbitration provision was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The trial court agreed with plaintiffs and denied the motion to compel. Inter-Coast appealed, and we affirm.