CA Unpub Decisions

Paco Saldana appeals from the court’s order revoking his parole following a contested parole revocation hearing. Appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Appellant did not respond to our letter advising him of his right to file supplemental briefing. We review the record to determine whether there are arguable issues on appeal.
Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder in 1992. He was paroled in 2015. One of the parole conditions prohibited the consumption of alcohol; another prohibited engaging in criminal conduct. In the early morning of May 30, 2017, officers observed appellant’s car swerve and almost collide with a car in the next lane on the highway. Appellant exhibited signs of intoxication during the ensuing traffic stop: he smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, and his eyes were red and watery. Appellant admitted having drunk a 12-pack of beer in 12 hours. His blood alcohol content was .1

Omar Granados Martinez appeals an order committing him for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962.) Substantial evidence supports the order. We affirm.

In 2011, Martinez was convicted of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, 189) and abuse/endangerment of a child (§ 273a, subd. (a)). In April 2017, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determined Martinez met the qualifications to be committed for treatment as an MDO.
Martinez filed a petition for appointment of counsel and a hearing to challenge that determination. (§ 2966, subd. (b).) The trial court appointed counsel and Martinez waived his right to a jury trial.

Bill Joe Burton appeals an order recommitting him for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962.) We conclude, among other things, that substantial evidence supports the order. We affirm.

Rashad Anthony Davis appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation in two separate cases and ordering the execution of a previously-imposed sentence of four years and eight months in county jail. Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in declining to impose a “split” sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h) (hereinafter section 1170(h)). We affirm.

Artis Wilson appeals from the judgment entered after his no contest plea to a violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11352, subdivision (a). He challenges the sentencing enhancements imposed for three prior drug convictions under former section 11370.2. Respondent concedes that the enhancements were abolished by Senate Bill No. 180 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) and should be stricken. We agree and order the judgment modified accordingly.

In this second appeal, Clarence A. Simpson again challenges the trial court’s finding that his prior out-of-state robbery conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony under California law. We affirm the judgment.

Roohollah (Roohi) Kermanshahchi appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of Heshmatollah (Heshmat) Kermanshahchi to Roohi’s third amended complaint for breach of confidential relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, conversion and an accounting. Roohi contends the court erroneously concluded each of his claims was barred as a matter of law by the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.

In July 1992, Vicky (Zepeda) Ghonim, the wife of defendant and appellant Morrad Modle Ghonim, was shot and killed at a public park in La Mirada. The murder remained unsolved for many years, until the investigation was re-opened as a cold case in 2006. Leon Martinez was convicted in 2015 of fatally shooting Vicky. In 2016, charges were filed against defendant for having solicited Martinez to perform the murder.
A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder, and found true the special circumstance allegations that the murder had been committed for financial gain and by means of lying in wait. The jury also found true the allegation that a principal had been armed with a firearm during the commission of the murder. Defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, plus one year for the firearm enhancement.

Blue Cross of California, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross, and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company (collectively, “Blue Cross”) appeal from the trial court’s order denying Blue Cross’s motion to compel arbitration. Blue Cross contends the trial court erred in finding Blue Cross waived its right to arbitrate. We affirm.

A jury convicted Jenna Marie Richmond of oral copulation of a person under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(1)) and lewd acts upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). She was sentenced to five years in state prison.
We conditionally reversed and remanded for the trial court to review certain privileged records in camera to determine whether they contain information relevant to the credibility of prosecution witnesses. (People v. Richmond (Jan. 26, 2016, B258109) [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court did so and found no such evidence. We have conducted our own review of the records and we consider additional issues. We affirm.

Leeroy Miller appeals after a jury convicted him of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that in committing the offense he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) (hereafter § 12022.53(d)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that appellant had suffered four prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Appellant was sentenced to 70 years to life in state prison. He contends (1) the court erred in denying his Batson/Wheeler motion; (2) his attorney provided ineffective assistance; and (3) the court violated his constitutional rights by denying his post-trial request to discharge his retained counsel and obtain appointed counsel. In a supplemental brief, appellant claims he is entitled to a remand to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike his section 12022.53(b) enhancement in light of Senate

The statute of limitations for a personal injury cause of action against a public entity is six months or two years, depending on, among other things, whether the public entity gives proper notice of denial of the administrative claim preceding the lawsuit. The plaintiff in this case filed his personal injury action seven months after the public entity denied his administrative claim, but less than two years after the accident that he claimed caused his injury. Therefore, one of the issues in the case was whether the public entity’s notice of denial of the claim was proper; i.e., complied with the applicable statutory requirements for giving notice.

Attorney Lisa F. Rosenthal appeals from an order requiring her and her client Laurie A. Saidiner to pay sanctions in the amount of $5,000 to Nina Jacobs-Jakubowicz’s counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 (section 128.7) and Family Code section 271 (section 271). Rosenthal contends that the trial court’s order denied her the full 21-day safe harbor period required by section 128.7. She also contends that section 271 does not authorize sanctions against an attorney. We agree, and reverse the trial court’s order as to Rosenthal.

Johnny Mata appeals his conviction for attempted murder, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Batson/Wheeler motion). Because the trial court erred, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a new hearing on Mata’s Batson/Wheeler motion.