CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Keith Allen Kohoyda (Kohoyda) challenges the trial court’s October 4, 2016, issuance of a civil harassment restraining order against him and in favor of plaintiff and respondent Steven Anthony Velkei (Velkei), as well as the subsequent order denying Kohoyda’s motion to dissolve, revoke, reconsider, or modify the restraining order.
Because the trial court’s order is amply supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

In this juvenile writ proceeding, S.N. (mother) seeks extraordinary relief from the juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code with respect to her young son, A.Z. (born March 2016). Mother’s sole argument here is that the San Mateo County Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to provide her with reasonable reunification services. Although the posture of this case is somewhat unusual—given the difficulties the Agency encountered in working with mother—we conclude that the juvenile court’s reasonable services finding was amply supported by the evidence and therefore deny the petition.

Shawn Philip Buxton appeals from a conviction of possession of methamphetamine for sale. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. He further contends the court erred in finding that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury or court trial on alleged prior convictions and in imposing a sentence enhancement based on a prior felony after that felony was reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. We agree with the last of these contentions. Accordingly, we will affirm the conviction and modify the judgment to strike the sentence enhancement.

This is an appeal by G.T. (the mother) of dependent children Christopher H., Jr., and Emilia H. (collectively the children) after the juvenile court terminated parental rights. She argues the court erred by failing to invoke Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), the so-called “benefit exception” to termination of parental rights. The court found that although she met the first requirement for this exception to apply, regular visitation and contact, she did not meet the second: demonstrating that the children would be greatly harmed if parental ties were severed. We find no error and therefore affirm the orders.

A jury convicted Roderick Warren Schleicher of two counts of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240; all statutory citations are to the Penal Code) as lesser included offenses of charged felony offenses. Defendant appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Schleicher did not file a supplemental brief. Because our review of the record discloses no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Robert Franklin Ensminger of: (1) transportation for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)); (2) possession for sale of methamphetamine (§ 11378); and (3) possession of suboxone (§ 11350, subd. (a)). Defendant admitted seven prior convictions, including violations of section 11378 and section 11379, subdivision (a). The trial court ultimately sentenced defendant to five years in prison. The operative portion of the court’s sentence was comprised of two years on count 1 and a three-year enhancement pursuant to section 11370.2, subdivision (c), based on one of defendant’s prior convictions.

A jury convicted defendant Julie Ceja of assault with a deadly weapon, a high-heeled shoe (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found true she inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court placed defendant on probation, with 180 days in county jail.
On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to prove she was the person who assaulted the victim. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

In November 2015, then 13-year-old Raymond C. entered a plea admitting that he had committed battery against his father. Raymond entered into a disposition agreement whereby he would serve 12 months on supervised probation, perform community service, and complete an anger management program. The agreement provided he could return to court in one year and request to withdraw his plea. The juvenile court accepted Raymond’s plea, placed him on probation, and set a wardship review hearing and a hearing on a motion to withdraw his plea and dismiss the case.

The State Bar of California (the State Bar) began an investigation of Lenore Albert, a licensed attorney. During its investigation, Albert filed a lawsuit in the superior court, naming the State Bar and four of its employees as defendants. Albert alleged that the defendants had committed various torts and other civil wrongs. Albert sought monetary damages and injunctive relief in 11 causes of action. The defendants filed demurrers on several grounds, including that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend.
We affirm the judgment. The California Supreme Court generally exercises exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving attorney disciplinary proceedings.

A jury convicted Rodrigo Gabriel Garcia and Ignacio Flores Vasquez of attempted murder. Garcia was the direct perpetrator of an assault with a knife; Vasquez was one of two alleged aiders and abettors. In an earlier opinion, we reversed Garcia’s conviction because the trial court failed to provide the jurors with an imperfect self-defense instruction.In this appeal, Vasquez argues there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of attempted murder, the pattern jury instruction regarding a defendant’s flight from the scene of a crime violates due process, and the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury as to the defense of imperfect self-defense.
We find sufficient evidence to sustain Vasquez’s conviction. We also hold that the flight instruction does not violate due process. However, just as in Garcia’s appeal, we reverse Vasquez’s attempted murder conviction because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense.

The People appeal from the trial court’s restitution order requiring the defendants to repay $16 million to insurance companies they defrauded over a two-year period in a medical billing scam. The district attorney argues the court abused its discretion in failing to set the restitution sum at more than $22 million as the full amount insurance companies paid on every claim submitted for health care at defendants’ surgery centers during the two-year period — including by health care providers not involved in the scheme. Based on the trial court’s finding there was “legitimate patient care mixed liberally with insurance fraud,” the evidence amply supports the court’s decision to award less than the $22.7 million the district attorney requested.

Plaintiffs and appellants, Kim Belemjian, Jonathan Fairfield, T.J. Johnston, Matthew Pimentel, Stanley Roy, FFLGuard, Inc., and California Rifle and Pistol Association, filed the underlying action challenging the regulatory process undertaken by defendants and respondents, Xavier Becerra, Stephen Lindley, and the Department of Justice (DOJ), to implement the Firearm Safety Certificate Program. The complaint alleged respondents failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act in promulgating the required administrative regulations.
Approximately two months after appellants filed their complaint, the Office of Administrative Law adopted respondents’ emergency regulations. This action mooted appellants’ claims.
Thereafter, appellants moved for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.)

Plaintiff alleged her employment was terminated in retaliation for internally reporting potentially unlawful actions by another employee. Her complaint alleged claims for (1) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and (3) employment discrimination related to age and sex. Her employer filed a motion for summary judgment, contending plaintiff’s history of aggressive and abusive handling of staff was a legitimate reason for her discharge and plaintiff had failed to present substantial evidence that this legitimate reason was a pretext for a retaliatory or discriminatory motive. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff appealed.
We conclude the trial court correctly granted summary adjudication of the causes of action claiming retaliation in violation of section 1102.5 and employment discrimination based on age and sex.

This is a second appeal by T.G., who challenges the 2017 juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights to M.H. and selecting adoption as his permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; all further statutory references are to this code unless noted.) A previous similar judgment was reversed in a nonpublished opinion, on T.G.'s appeal of the November 2016 parental rights termination order and permanent plan of adoption. (In re M.H. (May 24, 2017, D071503) [nonpub. opn.] [our prior opinion].) This court concluded that the previous finding was unsupported by substantial evidence, on likelihood of adoption within a reasonable time, in light of the thrust of the reports and assessments prepared by respondent San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency). We accordingly reversed the judgment terminating parental rights and its related finding that the parent-child beneficial relationship exception did not apply.