CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Daryl Ricky Woolford appeals from the trial court’s April 21, 2016 order terminating his mandatory supervision and imposing a prison sentence that had previously been stayed.
His claims on appeal concern the events surrounding the ultimate denial of his petitions for resentencing on his two crimes of conviction, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18. He first contends the trial court’s order allowing the withdrawal of his section 1170.18 petition to reduce and resentence on his burglary conviction--after the petition had been granted--was invalid. He next argues that subsequent orders denying reduction were in error, and that trial counsel was ineffective.
As we will explain, defendant’s challenges to the denial of his section 1170.18 petitions are not properly before this court and he raises no claim of error related to the April 21, 2016 judgment. Accordingly, we shall dismiss his appeal.

A jury found defendant Igor Ponomarenko guilty of eight counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts one [victim Y.P.], two and three [victim V.P.], five [victim J.P.], six [victim J.S.], eight [victim L.S.], nine [victim V.S.], and ten [victim S.P.]), and found true an allegation defendant committed a sex offense against two or more victims within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivision (e)(4).
Sentenced to 30 years to life in state prison, defendant appeals, contending the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to appoint a “domestic violence counselor” for the complaining witnesses, discharging a juror during trial, precluding defendant’s trial counsel from referencing the Salem Witch Trials or the “McMartin case” during her closing argument, and failing to properly instruct the jury on unanimity. Finding no error, we shall affirm.

Olabaku Norman Jones beat his girlfriend Mary Abigail Tucker, who died two days later “due to cranial cerebral injury.” A jury found Jones guilty of second degree murder, a lesser included offense of the charged first degree murder. In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true allegations Jones had one prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code § 667, subd. (a)(1)), one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (d); 1170.12, subds. (b)-(i)), and four prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
Sentenced to 38 years to life in state prison, Jones appeals, contending the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder. We shall conclude that there was no substantial evidence to support such an instruction and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Cindy Dee Kent was convicted of multiple counts of grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)), fraudulent use of an access (credit) card (§ 484g), forgery (§ 470), and making a check with insufficient funds (§ 476a, subd. (a)), all related to operation of her travel agency. Defendant contended that she had no criminal intent and made mistakes due to overwhelming personal problems stemming from physical health challenges and a divorce. She was sentenced to five years four months in state prison.

Defendant and appellant Bonnie Lee Sanchez (defendant) appeals her counterfeiting conviction, challenging only the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On January 24, 2018, we notified defendant of her counsel’s brief and gave her leave to file within 30 days, her own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument she might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues affirm the judgment.

Lorraine F. (mother) appeals from orders declaring her two youngest daughters Sienna and Sophie dependent children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and removing them from parental custody under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). Mother contends the orders are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm both orders.

The dependency court sustained jurisdiction over J.L.’s (mother) four youngest children, ages 14, 12, 10 and 6, and ordered them removed from her custody. On appeal, mother challenges the assertion of jurisdiction over her 10-year-old daughter, and argues there was no substantial evidence she physically abused that child. Mother also appeals from a restraining order protecting father and the three youngest children from her. She argues there was no substantial evidence she was a threat. We disagree and affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Norman Buckley (plaintiff) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents The W Hollywood Hotel and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (collectively, defendants), after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants’ demurrer to all of the causes of action asserted in plaintiff’s second amended complaint. We affirm the judgment.

Richard Matthew Long appeals the denial of his petition under Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) to recall his third strike indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life in prison. (Pen. Code, § 1170.126.) The hearing court found by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant was armed during the commission of the underlying offense (possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of section 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and was therefore ineligible for recall and resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(2). We reverse and remand with directions.

The victims in this case are brothers Brian and Adrian Barajas. They were attacked by appellant Carlos Chavez and his fellow gang members, who instigated a fist fight at a house party. Appellant hid a knife in his fist and stabbed the victims, wounding Adrian and killing Brian, who was trying to protect his younger brother from appellant. Eyewitnesses saw appellant with a knife in his hand during the attack. The victims were unarmed.
Moments before attacking the Barajas brothers, appellant bragged of his gang membership; his cohorts in the attack are part of the same gang. Appellant was charged with murder and attempted murder, with allegations that he personally used a deadly weapon and committed the crimes for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang, to promote, further and assist in the gang’s criminal conduct.

Respondents Jonica Stingl and her solely owned corporation, Zion II, Inc., filed cross-claims for breach of contract, indemnity, and fraud against appellants Errol Gaum (Errol) and his solely owned corporation, Nova Gold, Inc. Stingl and Zion II prevailed on the breach of contract and indemnity claims after a bench trial and were awarded compensatory damages of $1,311,772. The trial court also awarded them $98,330.65 in attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717. In these consolidated appeals, Gaum and Nova Gold challenge both the substantive rulings and the award of attorney fees. We affirm in full. Zion II is entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal. We remand to the trial court for determination of those fees.

After Selma V. Simon died in 2013, her next-door neighbor, Leonard Anebere, petitioned the court to invalidate her living trust, claiming Simon had more recently executed a holographic will naming him the beneficiary of Simon’s estate and the holographic will had effectively, albeit impliedly, revoked the trust. Anebere’s operative second amended petition also alleged Gregory Jones, Simon’s financial advisor and sole beneficiary under the trust, had exercised undue influence over Simon when she created and amended her trust. Having already provided Anebere with two opportunities to amend his petition to attempt to state a viable cause of action, the probate court sustained without leave to amend Jones’s demurrer to both causes of action and entered judgment in favor of Jones. We reverse the judgment to permit Anebere one final opportunity to amend his petition to state a cause of action for undue influence and, in all other respects, affirm.

Defendant and appellant Eddie Lamar Edwards appeals his conviction for second degree robbery. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, the trial court committed instructional errors, and the cumulative effect of the purported errors was prejudicial. The parties agree that the abstract of judgment should be amended to correctly reflect Edwards’s custody credits. We order the abstract of judgment corrected as the parties request, and otherwise affirm.

VS Diamonds, Inc. and Deepak Sagar (collectively “appellants”) appeal from a judgment entered following a court trial on Di-Moksh Diam, Inc.’s claims against them for breach of written contract; open book account; account stated; goods sold and delivered; and breach of written guaranty agreement. Appellants have failed to show error below, therefore we affirm the judgment.