CA Unpub Decisions

In October 2014, plaintiff Suprema Meats, Inc. (Suprema) entered a compliance plan with defendant City of Oakland (City) to address various violations of the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) at Suprema’s warehouse. The following summer, the City cited Suprema for 22 violations of this plan based on forklift activity. Suprema administratively appealed the citations, and a hearing officer denied the appeal in part, ordering the company to pay a fine of $9,500 for six violations.
Suprema then initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Suprema contends that the hearing officer’s decision denied it due process, was in excess of jurisdiction, and lacked substantial evidence. We conclude that two of the violations are not supported by sufficient evidence, but we otherwise reject Suprema’s claims and affirm.

Sergei Zhirov and Svetlana Zhirova (the Zhirovs) appeal from the trial court’s order denying their petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement of Government Code section 945.4. They contend that the trial court should have granted relief based on an allegedly erroneous notification by Alameda Health System (AHS) as to the cause of their son’s death. We affirm.

The Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (Department) filed juvenile dependency petitions on behalf of A.L. and S.L. (the children). The children’s mother, A.L. (mother), appeared late at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, arriving after the parties had completed presentation of their evidence and while the juvenile court was ruling on the request of mother’s counsel to reopen the evidence to allow a social worker’s testimony. Mother was not permitted to testify. The court found the children to be within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and declared them dependent children of the court. The court decided not to offer mother family reunification services pursuant to several statutory bypass provisions.
Mother appeals. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395, subd. (a)(1).)

Following the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized following an allegedly unlawful detention, defendant Javier Jaurigue pleaded no contest to possession for sale of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. The court sentenced defendant to a prison term of four years, as called for by his plea bargain.
On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asked this court to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel concurrently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in In re Javier Jaurigue (H045201) raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which we resolve by separate order. We notified defendant of his right to submit a written argument on his own behalf on appeal. He responded that he did not wish to file a supplemental brief and that he is satisfied with the writ petition filed on his behalf. We conclude that there are no arguable issues on appe

Defendant Jose Sanchez appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2) - count 1), criminal threats (§ 422 - count 2), and elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1) - count 3). The jury also found that defendant had personally used a firearm in the commission of each offense (§ 12022.5). The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) he was deprived of due process of law when the trial court instructed the jury to draw inferences from evidence proved only by a preponderance of evidence; (2) the sentence on count 2 must be stayed under section 654; and (3) the matter must be remanded to allow the trial court to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike the section 12022.5 enhancement. The judgment is reversed.

Jose Gonzalez seeks relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The petition is granted.
Following a jury trial, Gonzalez was sentenced to 80 years to life. In his declaration, trial counsel states that after he advised Gonzalez of his right to appeal, Gonzalez indicated he wanted to appeal the conviction. According to counsel, he agreed to file a notice of appeal on Gonzalez’s behalf, but as a result of being immersed in a serious and complex trial, he inadvertently failed to file a notice of appeal within 60 days from the date of the judgment.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Alexander Beltran Nunez pled guilty to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), being an active participant in a criminal street gang and carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subd. (c)(3)), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). He also admitted specified firearm and gang enhancements. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (b), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) A trial court immediately sentenced defendant to a total of 22 years in state prison, in accordance with the agreement. The court set another hearing for two weeks to resolve a credit calculation issue. At the next hearing, defendant requested that his retained counsel be substituted in for his appointed counsel. The court allowed the substitution, although it saw no need for new counsel, since it only intended to award credits. New counsel immediately asked for a continuance until five days later, which the court denied.

On December 7, 2001, defendant and appellant Melinda Kay Thomas pled guilty to one count of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). In exchange for her plea, the prosecution dismissed two forgery cases. On the same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to one year four months in state prison.
On September 6, 2016, defendant filed a petition to have her felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47). The People opposed the motion, arguing that defendant was not entitled to relief because Vehicle Code section 10851 was not a qualifying felony under Proposition 47. On October 7, 2016, the trial court denied the petition.

Defendant Guy Sills was implicated in the burglary of a car dealership and in removing two vehicles from the car lot. Ultimately, a jury convicted defendant of counts 1 and 3 for violations of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), driving or taking a vehicle without consent. Defendant admitted having four prior prison convictions. (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court dismissed counts 2 and 4 (receiving a stolen vehicle, § 496d, subd. (a)) and three additional prior conviction allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison: four years on count 1, one year on count 3, and one year for each of the four prior prison convictions.
On appeal, defendant argues the court erred when it allowed an amendment of the information and gave the jury instructions on the theory of taking, rather than driving, a vehicle. Defendant additionally contends that the prosecutor misstated the law in closing argument and the court should not have imposed consecutive sen

Defendant Leanna Bonamici appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Kathleen von Dehn, following a court trial on plaintiff’s claims for (1) open book account, (2) account stated, and (3) quantum meruit. Defendant, in pro per, contends that because the statute of limitations had run, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter. Defendant also argues that, even if the action was not time-barred, there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment.
We reject defendant’s contentions on the ground the record is inadequate for purposes of determining whether defendant’s contentions have any merit. Defendant has not provided this court with a reporter’s transcript, settled statement, or agreed statement of the oral trial proceedings. We therefore affirm the judgment. Plaintiff has filed in this court a motion for sanctions against defendant on the ground defendant’s appeal is frivolous.

We again address the circumstances under which a sentencing court may properly require a convicted defendant to submit to warrantless searches of electronic devices as a condition of probation, understanding that a similar issue is currently pending before the California Supreme Court in In re Ricardo P., S230923, and numerous other cases. Applying the principles of People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375 (Olguin), we conclude the search condition was properly imposed in this case because it is reasonably related to the crimes of which defendant Marcus Leon Howard was convicted (burglary; unlawful taking of a vehicle) as well as to preventing future criminal behavior and assuring compliance with the terms and conditions of probation. We also approve as reasonable an additional condition requiring that the probation department ratify Howard's choice of residence. Accordingly, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Brandon Anthony Amador of numerous sex offenses against a six-year-old victim as well as possession of child pornography. Sentenced to state prison for a determinate term of 23 years plus an indeterminate term of 40 years to life, defendant appeals. He contends (1) in connection with sexual penetration (count 3), the trial court failed to instruct on the lesser included offense of attempted sexual penetration, (2) in connection with forcible lewd conduct (counts 2, 4, 6, and 8), insufficient evidence supports the element of force, violence, duress, menace, and threat of great bodily injury, and (3) in connection with possession of child pornography (count 9), the trial court erred in failing to stay punishment pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We reject all of defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

Andrew Meghdadi appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside a default. He claims the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting his argument that the default should be set aside because of his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.)
Because Meghdadi filed his notice of appeal weeks before the default judgment was entered, he has appealed from a nonappealable order and we will dismiss the appeal. But even if we were to address the merits of his claim, Meghdadi would not be successful on appeal because he has not provided us with an adequate record to establish that the trial court abused its discretion.

Using his truck, defendant Joseph Paul Leonard struck and killed a man on a bicycle and attempted to kill another man a short time after the three fought at a nearby restaurant. He appeals his convictions of first degree murder and attempted premeditated murder, alleging the following errors: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it reopened argument in response to a jury question on the issue of intent and the jury’s impasse; (2) the court erred by not instructing on the lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter and attempted voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect defense of another; (3) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not requesting an instruction on provocation as negating premeditation and deliberation; and (4) insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding the murder and attempted murder were premeditated.
We affirm.