CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs Mohammed Danesh-Bahreini and Shahnaz Danesh appeal from a judgment dismissing their action against defendants ALAW and ALAW employee Regina Cantrell following the superior court’s sustaining of demurrers by ALAW and Cantrell to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint against defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase), ALAW, and Cantrell. ALAW acted as the foreclosure trustee in an attempted nonjudicial foreclosure on plaintiffs’ San Ramon home and the court found the actions of ALAW and its employee Cantrell in recording a notice of trustee’s sale to be covered by the statutory privileges of Civil Code section 2924, subdivisions (b) and (d), such that the tort action against them was barred. The court allowed some causes of action to continue against Chase, the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust. The parties state the sale was postponed and that to date, no trustee’s sale has been held.

Plaintiffs Sandra Foglia, individually and on behalf of the estate of Ronald Foglia (decedent), Michael Foglia and Annette Rackley appeal the summary judgment entered against them on their wrongful death claim against defendant Moore Dry Dock (MDD), based on the allegation that decedent developed mesothelioma after secondary exposure to asbestos brought home by his father, Felix Foglia (Father) from Father’s work at a shipyard operated by MDD.
MDD moved for summary judgment claiming it owed no duty of care to decedent for secondary exposure and that plaintiffs did not have and could not reasonably obtain evidence to show that decedent was exposed to asbestos from the clothing and person of Father as a result of Father’s employment at MDD from 1942 to 1945. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling the evidence was not sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Father was exposed to asbestos at MDD

Petitioner K.D. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for her two-year-old daughter, B.M. In her pro per petition, she contends that she should be “reconsidered” for reunification services because she is now in a treatment facility, “at a stable point in my sobriety,” taking parenting classes, attending weekly individual counseling, and “attending all scheduled visitation with my newborn 3x weekly.” She asserts that she has a “great relationship” with her children, is “on the waitlist for Pueblo Delmar,” and is “currently doing wonderful.” Mother attaches to her January 12, 2018 petition a January 11, 2018 letter from Janus, a residential substance abuse treatment program, stating that mother entered treatment on January 5, 2018. The letter verifies that mother has “begun” counseling and parenting classes.

Defendant Jeffry Lee Covarrubias pleaded no contest to four counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 by force, violence, duress, menace or fear (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)) in exchange for a negotiated sentence of 32 years in prison.
We appointed counsel to represent Covarrubias in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts, but raises no specific issues. We notified Covarrubias of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have received no written argument from Covarrubias.

Appellant Jamaika Quatel Robinson was convicted of multiple crimes with enhancements for personally using a firearm and being out on bail in another case. On appeal, he contends: 1) The trial court erred in failing to stay his sentence for the bail enhancement; 2) the court miscalculated his custody credits; and 3) the case must be remanded to allow the court to decide whether to dismiss the firearm enhancements. Respondent agrees with all three of these contentions. The only disputed issue is whether the failure to stay the bail enhancement was prejudicial to appellant. We think not. Therefore, while we remand for the trial court to address appellant’s latter two claims, we affirm the judgment in all respects.

Appellant was convicted of committing multiple child sex crimes against his cousin Tracy. On appeal, the only disputed issue is whether he used force or duress the first time he had sexual intercourse with Tracy. Finding substantial evidence he did, we affirm his conviction for aggravated sexual assault. While it is undisputed the judgment must be modified to stay sentence on one of the other counts and to increase appellant’s presentence custody credits, we affirm in all other respects.

Appellant Brandon McDuffie was convicted by a jury of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) with burglary and robbery special circumstances allegations (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A) and (G)), first degree residential burglary (§ 459), and robbery (§ 211). On November 6, 2015, the court sentenced McDuffie to a term of life without the possibility of parole for murder, but stayed the sentences for burglary and robbery under section 654.
McDuffie presents three claims in the instant appeal. He asserts that his due process rights were violated by allowing the jury to hear unduly prejudicial statements of his character made by law enforcement officers, that McDuffie’s confession should have been suppressed based on improper coercion and that the court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Petitioner G.W. (Father) has filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, claiming that the juvenile court erred at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.22 hearing in finding that returning A.W. (Minor) to Father’s care would be detrimental and that San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) provided reasonable services. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Father’s writ petition.

J.S. (father of H.S.; hereinafter Father-S), J.R. (father of H.R.; hereinafter Father-R), and V.S. (sister of Father-S, aunt to H.S. & great-aunt to H.R.; hereinafter Aunt) appeal the denial of Aunt’s Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions and relative placement preference motion filed pursuant to section 361.3.
A section 300 petition was filed against T.E. (Mother), Father-R and Father-S (collectively, Fathers) for H.S. and H.R. (collectively, the Children) for substance abuse and abandonment. Just prior to the section 366.26 hearing, Aunt filed section 388 petitions and a section 361.3 motion arguing that she was entitled to relative placement preference. Her section 388 petitions and motion pursuant to section 361.3 were denied and the Children remained in the care of their de facto parents who intended to adopt them. The parental rights of Fathers and Mother were terminated at the section 366.26 hearing and the Children were freed for adoption.

Defendant and appellant Alec James Robson is serving three years eight months in county jail after a jury convicted him of commercial burglary and identity theft. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Alec James Robson is serving three years eight months in county jail after a jury convicted him of commercial burglary and identity theft. We affirm.

After a jury found defendant and appellant Jose Luis Roman guilty of driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), and before trial on his prior conviction allegations, defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement. As part of the plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to the vehicle theft offense as alleged in count 1, and admitted he had suffered one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). In exchange, the remaining allegations were dismissed, and defendant was promised he could appeal from any issues relating to his right to a speedy trial. Defendant was sentenced to a stipulated term of four years in state prison. Defendant subsequently appealed, and the trial court issued a certificate of probable cause as to the speedy trial claim.

Defendant and appellant Samuel Jean Good appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 of his felony conviction for unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle with a prior vehicle theft conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)/Pen. Code, § 666.5). On appeal, defendant argues he is entitled to Proposition 47 relief for his vehicle theft conviction because (1) the plain text of section 490.2 does not exclude vehicle theft offenses from “ ‘petty theft’ ” misdemeanor convictions, and (2) the Legislature intended Proposition 47 to make recall and resentencing available for vehicle theft convictions such as those under section 666.5 by broadening the category of “ ‘petty theft.’ ” In light of the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion in People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page), we affirm the judgment without prejudice to allow defendant to refile his petition.

Robert Eugene Wainscott appeals his sentence in two consolidated cases, a domestic violence case and a theft case. In a prior appeal, this court reversed the trial court’s true finding on a prior strike allegation in the domestic violence case, remanded for resentencing, but affirmed his conviction in all other respects. (People v. Wainscott (Dec. 7, 2012, E053674) 2012 WL 6063276 [nonpub. opn.] (Wainscott I).)
This appeal concerns the propriety of on-bail enhancements (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b)) the trial court imposed in the theft case. At the original sentencing hearing, the trial court found true four on-bail enhancement allegations, but stayed three of them. Wainscott did not challenge those findings on appeal. On remand, the trial court imposed all four enhancements without staying them.