CA Unpub Decisions

Following a joint trial, a jury found the four codefendants guilty and sustained allegations as follows: Sandy George (Sandy), first degree murder with a felony-murder (burglary) special circumstance, burglary, and conspiracy to commit burglary; Kevin Michael Moreno (Kevin), first degree murder with a felony-murder (burglary) special circumstance, grand theft as a lesser included offense of robbery, burglary, and conspiracy to commit burglary; Michael James Moreno (Michael), first degree murder with a felony-murder (burglary) special circumstance, grand theft as a lesser included offense of robbery, burglary, and conspiracy to commit burglary; and Peaches Alexis Moreno (Peaches) first degree murder with a felony-murder (burglary) special circumstance, petty theft as a lesser offense of robbery, burglary, and conspiracy to commit burglary. The jury declined to return a verdict on any count based on the commission of a robbery.

The People appeal from the trial court’s refusal to reserve jurisdiction to modify restitution. A jury had convicted defendant Rusty Allen Tygart of felony vandalism with damages of $400 or more (Pen. Code, § 594; statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code), for driving over the victim’s bicycle. After his conviction, defendant moved to modify the verdict, arguing insufficient evidence established the bicycle’s replacement value. The trial court held a restitution hearing to determine the bicycle’s value. Following the hearing, it reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor. And based on evidence from the hearing, the trial court ordered $375 in restitution to the victim.
The prosecutor, however, argued the $375 did not include the value of aftermarket components installed on the victim’s bicycle and asked the court to reserve jurisdiction to allow the People to present evidence of other items damaged by defendant.

Appellant Thomas P. Guarino (Guarino) appeals from an order of the superior court granting an “anti-SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) motion to strike his First Amended Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. The motion was filed by defendants County of Siskiyou (County), individual members of the Board of Supervisors Marcia Armstrong, Grace Bennett, Michael Kobseff, Ed Valenzuela, and Jim Cook (the Board), as well as County Administrator, Tom Odom (collectively, defendants). Guarino also appeals the trial court’s order sustaining demurrers without leave to amend that were filed on behalf of the County, the Board, and Odom.
Because we affirm the order granting the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 motion, we need not decide whether the trial court erred in sustaining defendants’ demurrers.

Paul D. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order of dependency jurisdiction over E.D. (child), age two, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (failure to protect), on the ground that the order was not supported by substantial evidence. As the evidence was insufficient to show a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness to the child, we reverse the juvenile court’s order as to father only.

Defendant and appellant Roderick Washington appeals from his conviction, by no contest plea, of grand theft. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in a vehicle search (Pen. Code, § 1538.5). We conclude the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress, and therefore affirm.

Claudia Gonzalez (defendant) appeals her conviction for two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. Her appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On December 8, 2017, 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.

A jury convicted defendant Victor Torres of assault with a semi-automatic firearm and negligent discharge of a firearm, and found true the allegation that defendant had personally used a firearm under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a). On appeal, defendant contends that legislation effective January 1, 2018, ending the statutory prohibition on a trial court’s ability to strike a firearm enhancement (see §§ 12022.5 & 12022.53), applies and requires a remand for a new sentencing hearing. Respondent concedes and we agree that remand is required for the exercise of the trial court’s discretion to decide whether to strike the firearm enhancement under the new legislation. Accordingly, we affirm and remand.

Oded Aviel (defendant) challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. We conclude there was no error, and affirm.

Susan Proett appeals from an order removing her as trustee of the Natividad Cano Living Trust. She contends the probate court abused its discretion when it removed her as trustee because there was no good cause for her removal. She also contends the probate court was biased against her. We affirm.

Manuel Larios (defendant) appeals his conviction for driving a vehicle without the owner’s consent. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On November 15, 2017, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That letter was returned to us by the Department of Corrections indicating that defendant has been released from jail. Defendant has not provided an updated address to the Court, and has not submitted any brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Tom Rigby, formerly known as John Roebuck, filed a third amended complaint (TAC) for constructive fraud, promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation against defendants Wells Fargo Bank National Association (Wells Fargo) and Williams & Company, Inc. d.b.a. Keller Williams Realty Central Coast (Keller Williams). Plaintiff appeals the judgment entered after the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the TAC without leave to amend. He contends the trial court erred by denying him leave to amend. We affirm.

Sling Technologies, Inc. appeals an order disqualifying its counsel, Eric Woosley and the Law Offices of Woosley & Porter (collectively Woosley) from representing it in this case and the related arbitration. Sling contends the disqualification order is an abuse of discretion because it contains no factual findings; that Woosley did not previously represent Sling’s adversary iNet, Inc., doing business as iParq (iParq); that there is no substantial relationship between this matter and a prior matter in which Woosley represented a different entity, iParq LLC (the LLC); and that Woosley did not obtain any material confidential information from the LLC in the prior matter. We affirm.

Appellant Stephen Michael Budgell was convicted of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger in violation of Penal Code section 21310. He contends that statute is constitu-tionally infirm. We reject his challenges and affirm.

Clifton Octaveus Miller (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his probation and imposing the previously imposed sentence. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
Counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and requested this court to independently review the record on appeal to determine whether any arguable issues exist. On October 30, 2017, we sent defendant a letter informing him of the nature of the brief that had been filed and advising him that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief setting forth issues he wished this court to consider. We have received no response. There is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that defendant violated his probation. We affirm the trial court’s order.