CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction following his negotiated plea of no contest to: two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211—counts 2 & 5) with a 10-year personal use of a firearm enhancement as to count 5, and one count of grand theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)). His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Marsden motion. We affirm.

In a bench trial, the trial court found defendant Henry Garcia guilty of making criminal threats. The court also found Garcia had suffered a prior strike conviction. The court sentenced Garcia to two years eight months in state prison.
Garcia contends the evidence was insufficient to show he made criminal threats. We conclude the record holds sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We will affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Luis Espinoza of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found that, in the commission of the murder, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court imposed consecutive terms of 25 years to life for both the murder and the firearm allegation, for a total prison term of 50 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred.

Cross-complainants Carl A. Lindstrom and James A. Otto were cross-defendant Nasteho Ahmed’s attorneys in her employment discrimination lawsuit against a hospital. After settling with the hospital, Ahmed refused to honor the contingent attorney’s fee agreement she had entered into with Lindstrom. The hospital filed an interpleader action to resolve the dispute. Lindstrom and Otto cross-complained against Ahmed for breach of the contingency agreement, and prevailed following a bench trial. Lindstrom was awarded contractual attorney’s fees (Civ. Code, § 1717) to pay Otto for representing him in the breach of contract case. Ahmed appeals the trial court’s order granting attorney’s fees, arguing based on Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 (Trope) that Lindstrom’s and Otto’s status as Ahmed’s prior co-counsel precludes them from recovering Civil Code section 1717 attorney’s fees. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the trial court’s order after judgment.

Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124 (Kelly).)
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised the following two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying Pena’s motion to relieve his court appointed counsel; and (2) whether the court erred by sentencing Pena to serve 32 years to life in prison.

Petitioner I.E. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) conducted on December 19, 2017, and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now 11-year-old daughter, D.E. We deny the petition.

Defendant/appellant Brian P. appeals from a judgment and disposition order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Brian P. contends procedural and dispositional errors require remand for imposition of a new disposition. There is no need for remand, as the errors raised by Brian P. can be corrected without remanding the matter.

Appointed counsel for defendant Greg Allen Hudson 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.
On February 5, 2017, at about 2:24 a.m., defendant drove past an officer assisting a civilian. Defendant was driving about 80 miles per hour in a 40-mile-per-hour zone, and he nearly hit the officer and civilian as he drove past. The officer pursued him for over 18 miles, during which defendant ran 11 stop signs and one red light. He exceeded speeds of 120 miles per hour in posted 40- and 55-mile-per-hour zones.

In this bail forfeiture action, appellant, Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (Financial Casualty), posted a bond for the release of criminal defendant Andre Jackson, Jr. (Jackson). Thereafter, the prosecution amended the information to add an additional felony violation and an enhancement. When Jackson failed to appear, the trial court ordered the bond forfeited. According to Financial Casualty, the amendments materially altered the bail contract and materially increased the risk of nonappearance. Therefore, Financial Casualty contends, the trial court should have exonerated the bond.
The trial court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Francisco Hernandez Gonzales fatally stabbed his friend of many years after his niece told him the victim had molested her. The jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and found he used a deadly or dangerous weapon to commit the crime. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to a total indeterminate term of 26 years to life: 25 years to life for first degree murder and an additional one year for the weapon enhancement.
On appeal, defendant claims the jury’s finding that the murder was willful, deliberate and premediated is unsupported by substantial evidence. He also claims the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on mutual combat, contrived self-defense, voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense and voluntary intoxication.

A juvenile court ordered defendant and appellant J.A. (minor) committed to the Gateway Program (Gateway). Minor now contends that the court’s order that the probation department continue to dispense psychotropic medications “as determined necessary” was unconstitutionally overbroad. He also argues that the court did not have authority to order him to submit to blood testing under Penal Code section 1202.1. The People concede, and we agree, that the order for blood testing should be reversed. Otherwise, we affirm.

Sherri English called 911 to report a disturbance at the home she shared with her roommates, appellants Daniel Bennett and Keana Felder. Deputy Sheriff Gallacher responded and found English intoxicated and aggressive. However, after talking with the parties and trying to defuse the situation, Gallacher left the home without making an arrest. Shortly after he left, English stabbed both Bennett and Felder. The victims sued Gallacher, the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department, and the County of San Bernardino, claiming Gallacher caused their injuries by negligently failing to arrest English during his first visit. (Gov. Code, §§ 820 [government employee liability], 815.2 [vicarious government employer liability].) They also based a federal civil rights claim (42 U.S.C. § 1983) on the allegation Gallacher didn’t protect them due to race and gender bias.

After Eugenia Theodorakis broke off her dating relationship with Darren Kelly, he began sending her threatening e-mails and texts, such as: "I'm going to make you pay for the rest of your life," and "[Y]ou have it coming to you, you cunt, you whore, you a-hole." Later, Kelly reported Theodorakis to Child Protective Services (CPS), and then a physical altercation ensued in which both parties were injured.
Kelly appeals from a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued in favor of Theodorakis and her children. We affirm.

Plaintiffs Jason M. Scott and Patricia J. Scott (Buyers) bought a home (Property) from defendants Darryl Shoji Matsui and Pollie Alisa Gautsch (Sellers) in July 2014. After Buyers began the process of remodeling in April 2015, they allege that they first learned of an easement on the Property that created an encroachment onto the city's right-of-way. In a complaint filed in July 2016, Buyers asserted various causes of action against Sellers based on Sellers' alleged failure to disclose the easement.
Pursuant to an arbitration provision in the contract for the purchase and sale of the Property, Sellers demanded arbitration and filed a motion to compel arbitration in March 2017. The superior court denied Sellers' motion, ruling that, by their actions during the October 2015 through March 2017 time period—i.e., from the date the parties first attempted to resolve their dispute through the filing of Sellers' motion—Sellers had waived their right to arbitrate the