CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Lanzelle Green appeals from two convictions, for auto burglary and for being a felon in possession of a firearm, on the ground that the concurrent sentences he received for both crimes violates Penal Code section 654. We find there is substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that Green had multiple objectives within the meaning of section 654 and can be punished for both crimes.

Plaintiff Annette Pastorini Aiassa appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained defendant Corinna Pokorny’s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. We shall affirm.

It is ordered that the opinion filed on December 27, 2017 be modified as follows:
On page 7, the last full paragraph is deleted and replaced with the following:
“Husband maintains his lawyers, who were criminal, not family law attorneys, were ineffective in several instances, including advising him to plead no contest to the OSC re contempt, failing to quash the subpoena duces tecum in connection with the judgment debtor examination. To the extent these claims relate to civil matters, the argument fails. We may not reverse a civil judgment based on alleged incompetency of counsel. (Chevalier v. Dubin (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 975, 979-980.)
To the extent the contempt action was a criminal proceeding, to prevail on this claim husband must show performance fell below prevailing professional standards and was prejudicial. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694.) Husband has failed to show either. As noted several times, without the reporter’s transcript

The Almquist Group, LLC (Almquist Group) sought recovery from the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund (the Fund), Corporations Code section 2280 et seq. The California Secretary of State (the Secretary of State), who administers the Fund, denied Almquist Group’s application for recovery. Almquist Group appealed the Secretary of State’s decision by filing a verified petition in the superior court for an order directing payment out of the Fund. The superior court granted Almquist Group recovery in the amount of $50,000.
Both Almquist Group and Debra Bowen, as the Secretary of State, appealed from the judgment. Almquist Group contends it is entitled to nearly $750,000 in recovery from the Fund; the Secretary of State contends Almquist Group is entitled to no recovery whatsoever from the Fund.

A jury convicted Irvin Tellez of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), attempted murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a); count 2), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count 3), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 4.)

On May 18, 2017, the juvenile court, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, adjudged then one-year-old W.C. a dependent child after sustaining allegations he suffered nonaccidental injuries while in the care of his parents, K.C. (father) and A.C. (mother), who shared joint custody. The court returned W.C. to mother’s custody but ordered his continued detention from father, finding it would be detrimental to return him to father’s custody. On May 30 and June 13, 2017, at uncontested dispositional hearings, the court ordered family maintenance services for mother and accepted father’s waiver of reunification services, respectively.
Father appealed from the juvenile court’s May 18, 2017, findings and orders. After reviewing the juvenile court record, father’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. This court granted father leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that

R.M. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a combined Welfare and Institutions Code sections 366.36 and 388 hearing, conducted on February 28, 2017. At that hearing, the court denied mother’s section 388 petitions, in which she requested that her children, then seven-year-old Isaiah, six-year-old David and four-year-old Tatiana (the children), be returned to her custody with family maintenance services. The court also entered findings and orders pursuant to section 366.26, terminating mother’s parental rights and freeing the children for adoption.

Petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9. Because we agree that petitioner has shown he would have been entitled to the only discovery item in controversy had he requested it at the time of trial, we grant the petition.

Defendant and appellant Elizabeth Christine Mejia pled no contest to filing a false or forged document. (Pen. Code, § 115, subd. (a).) A trial court placed her on probation for three years. The Riverside County District Attorney (the district attorney) subsequently filed a combined felony complaint and petition to revoke probation, alleging five counts, including another violation of section 115. The district attorney opted to proceed solely on the violation of probation, rather than a second case. The court held a hearing and found defendant in violation of her probation. It terminated probation and sentenced her to two years in state prison. The court then dismissed the case, pursuant to the district attorney’s motion.

Defendant and appellant Adiel Xinol-Mendez violated the probation condition requiring him, as a homeless probationer, to report daily in person—Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.—to his probation officer. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court’s finding he violated probation must be reversed because it was based on a facially unconstitutional probation condition. Specifically, defendant asserts the condition requiring him, as a homeless probationer, to report daily in person violates the right of homeless probationers to travel, to obtain employment, and to be free from arbitrary and oppressive official action. We reject defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

In October 2015, defendant and appellant, Jorge Estrada, shot a stranger in the back in his driveway without any provocation. He was later charged with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 1) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2). He was also charged with personally using and discharging a firearm (§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d)) in count 2, and intentionally discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d)), and personally inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the commission of both counts.

Defendant Robert (Bobby) Granados, a member of the North Side Beaumont gang, stabbed Scott F. outside his home in 2010. Defendant was arrested and released on bail when he attacked Willie D. and Ian R. at a Halloween party, stabbing Ian. Three weeks later, defendant stabbed Isidro F., who was arguing with Isidro F.’s girlfriend. Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault, one count attempted murder, and of being an active participant in a street gang. The jury also made true findings as to enhancements for knife use, great bodily injury and that the assault on Scott was committed for the benefit of a gang. Defendant was sentenced to a determinate term of 22 years, consecutive to an indeterminate term of life for the attempted murder. Defendant then appealed.

Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
William W. Powell was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). (All further statutory references are to this code unless noted.) The jury also found him guilty of possession of ammunition by a felon. (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1).) He was further convicted of three felony counts of possessing drugs for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351 [cocaine], 11378 [methamphetamine (meth)], 11359 [marijuana]), as well as a misdemeanor count of possession of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)). Powell admitted he had suffered a serious/violent felony prior, within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). He was sentenced to a prison term of 13 years four months.

In this marital dissolution action, Joseph A. Ortola (Husband) appeals from an order of the family court denying his request for an order to set aside a judgment after trial (RFO). Because Husband has not met his burden of showing that the court erred in denying the relief he requested under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, we affirm the family court's order.