CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Jeffrey Bryant purchased membership interests in a limited liability corporation called Investco AV21 LLC (Investco AV21). He alleges these membership interests were securities that were not qualified with the California Department of Corporations (DOC) and were offered and sold to him illegally. Defendants Investco Management & Development LLC (Investco M&D), Steven Thompson, and Douglas Hanson (collectively the Investco defendants) moved to compel arbitration of Bryant’s claims pursuant to two agreements containing arbitration clauses. The trial court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion, but after oral argument, the court reversed its tentative ruling and denied the motion, finding, inter alia, that there was no contract, provision or agreement to arbitrate. On appeal, the Investco defendants argue that Bryant judicially admitted signing the agreements containing the arbitration clauses.

Plaintiff Freida Lee brought this action alleging defendants engaged in unfair debt collection practices by twice reporting the same debt, monies owed to the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), on her credit report and failing to note on the report that she disputed the debt. Shortly before trial, she moved to amend her complaint to add class action allegations and additional causes of action, and the trial court denied the motion. The court then granted summary adjudication to defendants as to one of plaintiff’s causes of action, and subsequently dismissed the action. On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to amend the complaint and erred in granting summary adjudication. We shall affirm the judgment.

Four-year-old J.L. was freed for adoption under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 after the court terminated reunification services provided to his mother, M.S. (mother), and then terminated her parental rights. Mother appeals, contending that the court abused its discretion by denying her section 388 petition to restart services because she had recently made significant progress in addressing the issues that had led to J.L.’s dependency. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of that petition. Because mother is unable to show error in the ensuing termination of her parental rights, we must affirm the order.

Defendant Jaime Ayala was convicted by a jury of several charges arising out of an incident in which he refused to pull over for police officers and led them on a high speed chase, sometimes on the wrong side of the road, on surface streets and on Highway 1. The pursuit continued into a residential area of Seaside where Ayala hit several parked vehicles before his own was finally disabled. When Ayala resisted being placed under arrest, he was Tasered and even bitten by a police dog before he was finally subdued. Ayala was sentenced to a total term of 12 years, eight months in prison and the trial court imposed various fines and fees, detailed below.

Defendant Jorge Luis Spain was convicted after jury trial of multiple counts of child molestation. On appeal, he argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel, the court should not have admitted testimony regarding Child Sexual Assault Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), and the prosecutor made improper arguments to the jury.

Defendant Jared Marius Henry was convicted of several offenses following an incident in which he seriously injured his spouse (hereafter, victim) while he drove their vehicle under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to a total term of nine years in prison on one of four counts with the trial court imposing concurrent terms on the remaining three counts.
On appeal, Henry argues the trial court erred in imposing concurrent terms and that it should have instead stayed each of those three sentences pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Alternatively, he contends that the trial court should have stayed two of the three concurrent sentences.
As explained below, we agree that the trial court improperly imposed concurrent sentences on two of the three counts, and will modify the judgment accordingly.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a). ) He was found not guilty of three other sex offenses against the same victim. The trial court granted probation on certain terms and conditions.
During trial, two seated jurors overheard an exchange in Spanish between Lydia, the alleged victim, A. (Lydia’s mother), and Y. (Lydia’s older sister) in the elevator. The exchange did not come to light until the case had already been submitted to the jury for decision. The two jurors were removed from the jury, and deliberations continued with alternate jurors. Defendant unsuccessfully moved for a mistrial, to reopen the case for further evidence, and for a new trial based on new evidence.

Almaden Corner, LLC (Almaden) appeals the trial court’s judgment after the court denied its motion to file a cross complaint against the plaintiff and respondent in this case, The Martha E. Sanfilippo Foundation (Sanfilippo). Almaden contends that the court erred because the cross complaint was compulsory and Almaden did not act in bad faith.

Flexible Manufacturing, LLC (Flexible) and Broadband Telecom Power, Inc. (Broadband), appeal from an order denying their motions to compel arbitration of the complaint brought against them by Advanced Charging Technologies, Inc. (Advanced Charging). Flexible and Broadband argue the trial court erred in concluding the arbitration provision contained in a separate licensing agreement (the Licensing Agreement) incorporated by reference into the parties’ settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) was not applicable to the claims asserted by Advanced Charging. We agree in part.

A jury convicted Victor Manriquez-Fernandez (Manriquez) of aggravated sexual assault (sodomy) of a child under age 14 while seven or more years older than the child (Pen. Code, § 269, subd. (a)(3) [counts 1-3]; all statutory citations are to the Penal Code), sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (a) [counts 4-6, 12-14]), forcible lewd acts with child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1) [counts 7-8]), lewd acts with a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (a) [counts 9-10, 15-17]), and possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (A) [count 11]). The jury also found he committed offenses against more than one victim within the meaning of the One Strike Law. (§ 667.61, subd. (b) & (e) [counts 7-10, 15-17].) The trial court imposed an indeterminate term of 210 years to life comprised of consecutive 15-years-to-life and 25-years-to-life terms.

Appellant C.V. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to her daughters, M.G., R.G. and A.G., now four-, three- and one-year-old, respectively. After reviewing the juvenile court record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. This court granted mother leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
Mother filed a letter but failed to address the termination findings or orders or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the section 366.26 hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

Appointed counsel for minor K.F. 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.) Minor was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from minor. Our review reveals no arguable issues.

Appellant Roberto Iturralde (defendant) was convicted of one count of attempted manufacture of a sharp instrument while confined in state prison, in violation of Penal Code section and 4502, subdivision (b). It also was found true that he had four prior serious felony convictions and had served two prior prison terms. He appeals his conviction, contending the evidence is legally insufficient. We affirm.

Following a jury trial in which appellant Frank Vasquez represented himself, the jury found him guilty of first degree murder for the shooting death of Juan Carlos Ibarra. The jury also found him guilty of second degree robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury found true that the first degree murder was committed during the commission of the robbery, and it found true that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during these crimes. The jury, however, acquitted appellant of attempted robbery. On appeal, appellant raises numerous issues. He argues that his waiver of his right to counsel was not voluntary. He also raises various claims of instructional error. He further contends that his sentence on the robbery conviction should have been stayed under section 654. He claims the parole fine was improperly imposed. We reject these contentions.