CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Will Thomas Willmon asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On October 27, 2013, defendant was released from incarceration. He was informed that he was required to register as a sex offender upon his release. Although defendant was repeatedly reminded to register as a sex offender, he still failed to do so, and was finally arrested on March 17, 2015.
On May 26, 2016, defendant was convicted by bench trial of failure to register upon release from custody.

Plaintiff and appellant, Gregory Shehee, filed the underlying complaint for legal malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress against defendant and respondent, Arthur Hampar, a deputy public defender. Shehee alleged Hampar provided him with inadequate legal representation in his criminal case. Specifically, Shehee claimed Hampar violated his duty of loyalty and duty to inform. According to Shehee, Hampar did not inform Shehee of, and waived, his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. However, when Shehee filed his complaint, the criminal case against him had not been resolved.
Hampar demurred to the complaint arguing Shehee could not state a legal malpractice claim arising from a criminal proceeding because Shehee could not plead and prove actual innocence, an element of the cause of action. The trial court agreed and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.

Juan Carlos Alvarez stands convicted of multiple felony offenses including attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and active participation in a criminal street gang. His claims on appeal allege ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary error, and sentencing error. He further contends that the trial court erred by denying a motion for the replacement of appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). We reject all but one of his claims, and the exception concerns an inapplicable sentencing enhancement. The judgment will be modified to strike that enhancement. Subject to this modification, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Simon Raymond Flores appeals from the judgment revoking and reinstating his parole. We affirm.

Appellants and defendants S.C. (Mother) and A.B. (Father; collectively, Parents) appeal after the termination of their parental rights to their three children A.B. (a boy, born Oct. 2008), R.C. (a boy, born May 2012) and H.B. (a girl, born Aug. 2013; collectively, Minors) at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Mother, joined by Father, challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights arguing Mother shared a beneficial parental relationship with all three children within the meaning of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) (B)(i).

This appeal arises from a decision of the juvenile court to take jurisdiction over minor children A.A. and N.A. after finding A.A. suffered physical abuse while in the care of his father and paternal aunt and finding T.M. (Mother) was not capable of protecting the children without continued court supervision. Mother seeks reversal of the juvenile court's findings and orders. In doing so, she contends she should be deemed a "nonoffending parent" and not subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. She also seeks remand with instructions to dismiss jurisdiction over her minor children, followed by dismissal of the first amended dependency petition. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the juvenile court's findings and orders in their entirety.

In this writ proceeding, petitioners Comercializadora Travel Advisory, S.A. de C.V. (Advisory), and a related company Holiday Club Management de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Holiday; sometimes together Petitioners), challenge the trial court's denial of their motion to quash the service of summons and complaint of plaintiff and real party in interest Serge Nayshtut (Plaintiff). Petitioners, who are Mexican corporations, argue the undisputed facts demonstrate that California lacks jurisdiction over either of them to adjudicate Plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and misrepresentations concerning a timeshare membership agreement he entered into with Advisory in Mexico, for which Holiday provides customer service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10; all further statutory references are to this code unless noted.)

Nagi Iskander, as Trustee of the Nagi Iskander and Amal Iskander AB Living Trust (Iskander), appeals following a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Jerome Biddle and Susan Biddle in Iskander's lawsuit alleging fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and rescission in connection with his purchase of a building owned by the Biddles. Specifically, Iskander contends that the summary judgment should be reversed because it was based on an erroneous ruling sustaining some of the Biddles' evidentiary objections to the declarations submitted by Iskander in opposition to the summary judgment motion. We conclude that Iskander's argument lacks merit, and accordingly we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Ramon Meza Rabago of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422), witness intimidation accompanied by force (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), spousal battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). In bifurcated proceedings, Rabago admitted one prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), two serious felony priors (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two strike priors (§§ 667, subd. (c), 1170.12, subd. (c)). The trial court dismissed one strike in the interest of justice under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and sentenced Rabago to a total term of 28 years in prison.
Rabago appeals. He contends the court erred by (1) allowing the victim to testify regarding Rabago's involvement in a prior fatal stabbing and (2) allowing a sheriff's deputy to testify regarding the behavior of domestic violence victims. We disagree with these contentions and therefore affirm.

Pavone & Fonner, LLP (P&F) appeals from an order denying a preliminary injunction that it sought in its lawsuit asserting claims of theft, conversion and receiving stolen property against Jerne Willis (Jerne) and McCall Prentice (McCall), who received funds from a sale of real property by their sister, Myzsa Willis (Myzsa). As a basis for its claims, P&F alleges that the real property sold by Myzsa was subject to a lien held by P&F to secure payment for attorney fees owed by Myzsa to P&F, and that Jerne and McCall wrongly received the funds knowing of P&F's lien. At issue in this appeal is the denial of a preliminary injunction against Jerne and McCall that would have enjoined them from "divesting themselves of the funds [from the sale of the real property] and/or transferring, encumbering or disposing of any assets obtained from those funds."

A jury convicted defendants Josue Agustin Magallanes and Roland Jimenez Arcos of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 6), acquitting them of four charges of attempted murder.

Defendant George Young Gallegos appeals an order extending for an additional two years his civil commitment to the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) as a person who was previously found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) after he waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to the extension requested by the Penal Code section 1026.5 petition filed by the San Diego County District Attorney. On appeal his appointed counsel raises no arguable issues, but requests that we nevertheless exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. However, we agree with the reasoning and holding in People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226 (Martinez) that the procedures set forth in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) do not apply to an extension of an NGI civil commitment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to Anders/Wende or other.

Mohamed Attia (Attia) and Noram Mohamed (Mohamed) had been married for about four months when Mohamed sought a domestic violence restraining order preventing Attia from contacting her. (Fam. Code, § 6300.) Mohamed alleged both physical and verbal abuse, and sought a three-year order. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found Mohamed did not establish the claimed physical abuse. But the court found Mohamed met her burden to show Attia had verbally and emotionally abused her, and this abuse warranted a one-year protective order against Attia.
Attia challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order, and contends the court committed evidentiary errors. We reject Attia's contentions and affirm.

On February 1, 2015, defendant Frank Evans was involved in a heated family argument during a Super Bowl party. Defendant was convicted of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422; count two), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); counts three & four), being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count five), having two prior strikes (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)), having two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), having a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and personal use of a firearm as to counts two through four (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to provide a sua sponte instruction on the lesser included offense of assault with a firearm for counts three and four. He also contends his sentence for count five should have been stayed pursuant to section 654, and the People agree.