CA Unpub Decisions

After coming home in a drunken rage, defendant Robert Tommy Garrett beat and body-slammed his wife, fracturing several ribs and her pelvis and injuring her head. Although his wife minimized the attack in her trial testimony, her prior statements about the attack were admitted into evidence through other witnesses. The jury found defendant guilty of multiple counts and enhancements; the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 13 years in state prison and he timely appealed.
Defendant contends the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats. He adds that the court erred in failing to apply Penal Code section 654 to his assault and threats convictions. We conclude an instruction on attempted criminal threats was warranted; however, we find the error harmless on this record. Finding no error in sentencing, we affirm.

Following months of investigation, defendant Michael John Schulze was charged with multiple counts involving the manufacture and possession of concentrated cannabis, cultivation of marijuana, possession of marijuana for sale, possession of a firearm by a felon, and being an unlicensed driver. A jury convicted him of cultivating marijuana, possessing marijuana for sale and driving without a driver’s license.

James Torfason appeals an order committing him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962.) He contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that his mental disorder caused or was an aggravating factor in the commission of the offense. Because substantial evidence supports the court’s order, we affirm.

Dontrae G. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order declaring his children dependents of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). Father contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that his criminal history and status a registered controlled substance offender placed his children at a substantial risk of harm. We agree and reverse the jurisdictional finding as to Father.

On March 2, 2015, Jack G. Dadanian, who had a long criminal history including a conviction for forcible sexual penetration (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)), pleaded guilty to possession of heroin by a specified prior felon, and was sentenced to 16 months in prison (Health & Saf. Code, § 6600, subd. (b)).
On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which reduces certain nonserious and nonviolent crimes, such as low-level drug- and theft-related offenses, from felonies to misdemeanors. (People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 889-890.) A qualifying person serving a sentence for a felony that was reclassified under Proposition 47 may petition the trial court for a recall of sentence and request resentencing, which must be granted “unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subds. (a)-(c).)

C.F. appeals a juvenile court’s probation condition that he attends counseling at a batterer’s treatment program (Pen. Code, § 1203.097), following the sustaining of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition finding that he committed battery on his girlfriend. (§ 243, subd. (e)(1).) We conclude, among other things, that the court did not err by imposing a batterer’s treatment condition. We affirm.

Carrie Tsung Hui Wu was employed as a sales representative for NNW Import Incorporated, which sold women’s clothing imported from China to clothing stores in the United States. In December 2010 Wu negotiated a contract on behalf of NNW Import with Forever 21 for the purchase of approximately $120,000 in imported women’s clothing. In March 2011 Wu caused Forever 21’s partial payment of $67,832 for the clothing to be diverted to her personal bank account.
Wu was arrested and charged in an information with grand theft by embezzlement (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). Represented by the public defender’s office, Wu entered a plea of not guilty on January 3, 2013. On April 17, 2013 Wu appeared with retained counsel, and the public defender’s office was relieved as counsel of record.

Two brothers, David Vafa and Ray Vafa, went into business together. When David became involved in a dissolution proceeding with his spouse, Ray persuaded him to disclaim any interest in the business for purposes of the division of community property; David then stipulated that he had no interest in the business, and the community was divided accordingly. David now asserts that he is entitled to an interest in the business. The trial court sustained Ray’s demurrer to David’s complaint without leave to amend. We affirm.

David Giron, Jr. (Husband), in pro. per., appeals from a judgment of dissolution of his marriage to Rocio Giron (Wife). Husband contends that the court erred in determining that a home in Oxnard was community property. Because the record on appeal is not adequate for a review of Husband’s claim, we affirm the judgment. (Roberson v. City of Rialto (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1507.)

In 2011 Giryung Chang and her husband sold their struggling family market to Baleunson LLC, whose sole member is Chang’s brother-in-law, Hwa Bum Shin (Shin). In 2014 Chang sued Shin and his wife, Lana D. Shin, alleging multiple wage-and-hour violations arising from her employment at the market (the Shin action). The trial court granted the Shins’ motion for summary judgment, ruling they were not Chang’s employer. Chang then filed the instant lawsuit against Baleunson, alleging the same wage-and-hour claims. The trial court sustained Baleunson’s demurrer to Chang’s complaint without leave to amend based on the doctrine of res judicata, finding Baleunson was in privity with Shin, as Chang apparently conceded in her opposition to the demurrer. The court entered a judgment of dismissal. We reverse.

Tabor took shelter in a church on a cold night. He was drunk, and he continued to drink inside the church. He tried to color his long hair with blue dye he brought along. He spilled the dye on the carpet and furniture. Based on this incident, he was charged with two counts of felony vandalism and one count of misdemeanor trespass (Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2014015245). (§§ 594, subd. (b)(1), 594.3, subd. (a), 602, subd. (m).) The jury acquitted him of all but the trespass count.
On another occasion, Tabor banged on the door of a house late at night and shouted that he needed scissors. He broke a window, entered the house, took scissors from a kitchen drawer, and began cutting his hair. The woman who lived there was terrified. She escaped when he went down a hallway looking for a razor. A deputy sheriff saw Tabor trying to get out a sliding glass door by repeatedly throwing himself at it.

Plaintiff and appellant Artak Daldumyan appeals from a judgment following an order sustaining a demurrer as to certain causes of action and an order granting summary judgment as to the remaining causes of action in favor of defendant and respondent World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc. (the Insurance Agency).

Defendant Davaughn Love (Love) drove defendant Antwoine Vaughn (Vaughn) into rival gang territory, where Vaughn got out of the car and starting shooting “wildly” at a man standing on the sidewalk with his family; many of the bullets hit the man as he tried to flee across an intersection, other bullets hit a passing car. A jury convicted Love and Vaughn (collectively, defendants) of attempted premeditated murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle, and convicted Vaughn of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendants attack their convictions as being invalid due to errors in jury selection, with the jury instructions, with the admission of evidence, and with the sufficiency of the evidence as well as due to prosecutorial misconduct. Their arguments lack merit. Defendants also attack their sentences and seek a remand so the trial court can exercise its discretion to strike their firearm enhancements. These arguments have merit.

Plaintiff Deborah Foulks appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of her former employer, the County of Los Angeles (County), and a County staff psychiatrist, Dr. Phani Tumu (collectively, defendants). We reject plaintiff’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining defendants’ objections to most of her exhibits. Reviewing the record de novo, we agree summary judgment was proper and affirm.