CA Unpub Decisions

K.L. (Mother) appeals from an order after the 18-month permanency hearing (1) finding there was a substantial risk of detriment to her two children if returned to her; (2) finding reasonable reunification services were provided to her; and (3) ordering future enhancement visitations to be supervised. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22.) We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Bryan Mitchell appeals from the judgment of his convictions of spousal rape, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon. Mitchell argues that he was denied a fair trial and due process when the court coerced the jury into reaching a guilty verdict on the rape charge and that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial based on jury misconduct and the jury’s exposure to an out of court verbal exchange between the victim and a member of Mitchell’s family. As we shall explain, we disagree. Notwithstanding our conclusion, we remand this matter for resentencing because the court imposed an unauthorized sentence on the attempted murder conviction.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, defendant and appellant Daniel Jimenez pleaded no contest to one count of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger in violation of section 21310. Jimenez’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. We have done so, and we affirm.

Aubrey D. Wadford appeals from the sentence imposed after his guilty plea. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).)
During an argument with the mother of his child, Wadford stabbed and killed her. After several days of trial, Wadford waived his rights and pled guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). He also admitted the use of a knife in the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to 15 years on the murder conviction, and a consecutive one year on the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon allegation.
Wadford was ordered to pay a restitution fine of $4,800 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, a like fine of $4,800 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45 to be suspended pending successful completion of parole or postrelease community supervision, and restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board in the amount of $5,000.

P.N. (Mother) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings that she failed to protect her daughter, A.S. (born February 2011), and her son, C.S. (born December 2012), from their father, L.S. (the father). Mother acknowledges that because the father has not appealed from the findings made against him, the outcome of her appeal will have no impact on the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the children. Nonetheless, and although the juvenile court has since terminated dependency jurisdiction and awarded custody of the children to Mother (events which arguably could have rendered her appeal moot), Mother urges us to exercise our discretion and consider her appeal.

The trial court granted plaintiff Rani Kurapati’s motion for summary adjudication of four causes of action asserted against defendant Yosef Adde. After Kurapati dismissed the remaining causes of action, the court entered judgment for Kurapati in the amount of $140,030, representing $40,030 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
Adde contends that the award of punitive damages must be reversed because it is unsupported by evidence of his financial condition. Kurapati does not dispute this point, and we agree. We therefore reverse the award of punitive damages and direct the court to enter an amended judgment in the amount of $40,030.

In 2014, the California State Bar (State Bar) found that plaintiff and appellant Marilyn S. Scheer engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and collected illegal fees in representing clients seeking loan modifications in states in which she was not licensed to practice law. (In the Matter of Scheer (Review Dept. Mar. 18, 2014, No. 11-O-10888) 2014 WL 1217969.) The State Bar also found that Scheer collected fees from California clients for loan modifications before fully completing the work, in violation of Civil Code section 2944.7, subdivision (a). The Review Department of the State Bar (the Review Department) recommended that Scheer be ordered to repay more than $120,000 in fees to clients, and that her bar license be suspended until she repaid the illegal funds, and in any case for at least two years.

Jose H., a 14-year-old minor, appeals from a disposition order entered in a wardship proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Jose’s only claim on appeal is that the minute order of the disposition hearing erroneously included a maximum confinement term. The People agree it was error to include a maximum confinement term, and also agree that the erroneous term should be stricken from the minute order. We will strike the term.

Dianjei Quishun Thomas committed robberies and other crimes when he was 17 years old. The district attorney charged him with these crimes in adult criminal court, and Thomas was convicted upon his plea of no contest. His sentence included a 10-year prison term for his personal use of a firearm during the robberies. (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b).)
Before Thomas’s judgment became final, two statutory changes took effect which, if applied retroactively, potentially ameliorate his punishment: (1) the electorate passed the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57), which eliminated a prosecutor’s authority to file criminal charges against a juvenile directly in adult court; and (2) the Legislature amended Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h), to permit courts to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement in furtherance of justice.

Steven Carniglia appeals a judgment after the jury convicted him of forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2); count 1), forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2); count 2), lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a); count 3), and forcible lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 4). The trial court sentenced him to eight years in state prison (a six-year term for count 1, a consecutive two-year term for count 2, and sentences for the remaining counts stayed).
Carniglia contends (1) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of uncharged sexual offenses because it was unduly prejudicial; (2) the jury should have been instructed on nonforcible oral copulation and sodomy because they were lesser included offenses of counts 1 and 2; and (3) cumulative error. We affirm.

Defendants Joya Green, Inc., Poly Joya, Inc. (corporate defendants), Tien Hsin Chi, Jen Hao Chi, and Kuan Hua Wang (individual defendants) (collectively, defendants) appeal from the judgment entered after a two-day bench trial in favor of respondent Tracy Lee on her claims for fraudulent transfer of funds and conspiracy to defraud. Although defendants make three arguments on appeal, we have jurisdiction to consider only one of them, namely whether the trial court erred in denying the individual defendants’ request made on the second day of trial for additional time to retain an interpreter. As discussed below, on the record before us we discern no prejudicial error and affirm.

Appellant Michael Carver, a former attorney, seeks payment for his representation of now-deceased Azniv Kokikian, the mother of respondents Lucine Meguerian and Hovik John Meguerian (respondents). Although Carver previously filed a creditor’s claim in Kokikian’s probate proceedings, respondents, acting as the administrators of Kokikian’s estate, denied Carver’s claim. Carver then filed this lawsuit seeking payment for the legal work he did for Kokikian.
After Carver presented his case to the jury, the trial court granted respondents’ motion for nonsuit. Although we find the judgment contains errors, we nonetheless affirm the judgment as modified because, as a matter of law, the jury could not have returned a verdict in Carver’s favor based on the evidence he presented. In particular, we conclude Carver could not and did not demonstrate Kokikian breached any of the three alleged retainer agreements she signed. Accordingly, we affirm.

Defendant Charles Edward Jones appeals from the judgment following a court trial in which he was convicted of attempted first-degree murder (count 1) and child abuse (count 2). (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 189, 273a, subd. (a).) The court also found true the allegation that he was armed with a firearm during commission of the attempted murder. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) He raises issues of improper impeachment, prejudicial legal error, discovery violation, and ineffective assistance of counsel. On September 11, 2017, we affirmed the judgment in full. (People v. Jones (Sept. 11, 2017, B271239) [nonpub. opn.].) This court issued a remittitur after the Supreme Court denied a petition for review.
Defendant subsequently filed a motion to recall the remittitur (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(2)), seeking relief under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.).

This is a breach of contract case, albeit one that arises from non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff and appellant Amaca Investments (Amaca) fell behind on its mortgage payments, and defendant and respondent U.S. Bank, as trustee for a securitized mortgage instrument, began the process of foreclosing on Amaca’s property. A détente ensued when U.S. Bank and Amaca entered into a forbearance agreement that obligated U.S. Bank to refrain from taking further steps to foreclose on Amaca’s property so long as Amaca made payments in agreed-upon amounts by the 15th day of future months. Amaca subsequently made several payments after the agreed-upon due dates, and U.S. Bank foreclosed on the property. Amaca sued, claiming its payments had been timely and U.S. Bank had therefore breached the forbearance agreement. The trial court entered summary judgment for U.S. Bank.