CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Counsel for defendant, Briand Bernard Williams, has filed an opening brief that sets forth the statement of the case but raises no issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant, as he is entitled to do, filed his own brief. We affirm the order.

This appeal, however, is primarily about what we held and did not hold in a prior appeal. In the prior appeal we reversed an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, ruling the insureds had stated causes of action. The insureds, and the trial court, believed we did much more than that. We did not. Therefore, we reverse.

Plaintiffs Bromley, LLC and OPICS Real Estate Investments & Brokerage, LLC sued defendant Altadena Lincoln Crossing, LLC for breach of contract over a failed land purchase agreement. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court awarded Bromley $102,703.80 and OPICS $179,617.81, plus prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs. Altadena argues the trial court erred in its interpretation of the contract, but Altadena has not included a reporter’s transcript of the proceedings in its record on appeal. The record consists of the complaint and answer, the contracts at issue, the trial court’s statement of decision, and the notice of entry of judgment, to which a copy of the judgment is appended. Accordingly, we treat the appeal as one on the judgment roll, and our review is limited to errors appearing on the face of the record. Finding none, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Defendant Jorge Castaneda Lopez appeals from an order denying his petition for recall of sentence under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act). The trial court concluded Lopez was ineligible for resentencing because he was armed during the commission of his crime. Lopez contends the trial court misconstrued the statute. We find no error and affirm.

In this appeal from the issuance of a civil harassment restraining order, appellant Teresa Arasheben presents general challenges to the manner in which the hearing was conducted, and to the trial court’s credibility determinations. Appellant presents no legal grounds for her appeal; we affirm.

Mandy Leon Allen appeals from his judgment of conviction of two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and one count of transportation of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). Allen raises the following arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever trial on the charges arising from two drug-related arrests; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized in an unduly prolonged traffic stop; and (3) the trial court may have erred in determining that there was no discoverable material in the personnel file of one of the arresting officers. We affirm the judgment of conviction, but remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

Defendant and appellant Levar Brown raises contentions of trial and sentencing error following his conviction by jury of first degree murder with a firearm-use enhancement (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12022.53, subd. (b)–(d)). For the reasons discussed below, the judgment is affirmed as modified and remanded with directions.

Appellant Teresa Arasheben appeals from the entry of a permanent restraining order against her, based on a stipulation signed solely by a lawyer purporting to represent her. Because the stipulation impaired appellant’s substantial rights and deprived her of any ability to defend herself, the judgment is reversed.

Nicole V. and Nathanial H. (when referred to collectively, petitioners) have filed separate petitions for an extraordinary writ, as authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, to set aside the order of respondent court that set a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 at which their parental rights may be terminated with respect to their infant son Levi. (Subsequent statutory references are to this code.) Their sole contention is that substantial evidence does not support the finding of respondent court that adequate reunification services were offered by real party in interest Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency). Apart from information required to establish the general context, we summarize only those parts of the record necessary to resolve the precise issue presented.

Petitioner is the Father of three children, a girl born in January 2011, a boy born in November 2011, and girl born in December, 2012. He challenges the juvenile court’s order setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 by arguing that (1) he was not provided reasonable reunification services and (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a new appointed counsel. For the reasons given below, we deny the petition.

Defendant Blaine Richard Martin was convicted after a jury trial of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1) ) and unlawful possession of ammunition by a convicted felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)), both felonies, and sentenced to state prison. His court-appointed attorney has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Martin was informed of his right to file an independent brief and has not done so. Upon our independent review of the record, we conclude there are no arguable issues for appellate review and affirm.

Plaintiff 1049 Market Street, LLC (1049 Market) appeals from adverse rulings by the trial court in connection with its writ petition challenging certain conduct by the City and County of San Francisco, its Planning Department, Department of Building Inspection, and Board of Appeals (collectively, the City) to suspend and then revoke a demolition permit. 1049 Market sought the demolition permit after the City issued two notices of violation because units in the building had been converted from commercial to residential without a permit. The demolition permit was originally issued in 2013, but it was soon suspended. Although 1049 Market challenged this suspension through an administrative appeal, it eventually withdrew the appeal. In early 2015, the City reinstated the permit. Property tenants then challenged this reinstatement through another administrative appeal, and in May 2015, the Board of Appeals (Board) revoked the permit.

Appellant was driving while intoxicated when he fired a pistol at three men walking on the grounds of the Valencia Gardens housing project in San Francisco (Valencia Gardens). Then, while attempting to flee from the police, appellant struck another car causing it to hit a pedestrian. The pedestrian and a passenger in the car died and the other driver was seriously injured. These events resulted in appellant’s convictions for multiple offenses, including felony assault, driving under the influence causing injury, and manslaughter. The jury also found true multiple sentence enhancement allegations, including that appellant caused injury and death to more than one victim. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of more than 27 years.

Defendant Carlos David Lopez pleaded no contest to two counts of forcibly committing lewd or lascivious acts on his nine-year-old niece (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)), and was sentenced to state prison. Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his pre-plea motion to access medical records that the victim’s health care provider produced in response to defendant’s subpoena duces tecum. Defendant argues the trial court’s decision violated his federal constitutional rights to the effective assistance of counsel, due process, compulsory process, and confrontation. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment.