CA Unpub Decisions

Daniel Alejandro Nuno appeals a judgment following conviction of first degree murder with a finding that he personally discharged a firearm causing death during commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 12022.53, subd. (d).) We affirm.

Appellant Stan Schuldner appeals from an judgment following an order sustaining the demurrer of respondent Office Depot, Inc. without leave to amend. We conclude the trial court properly sustained the demurrer as to all causes of action asserted against Office Depot. We further conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Schuldner leave to amend. As the trial court succinctly—and correctly—put it, Schuldner does not “have a claim against Office Depot here.” We thus affirm.

Defendant Gerald Salas appeals from a second degree robbery conviction following a bench trial. His appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief advising that he finds no arguable issues to present, and pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requests that this court conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Counsel apprised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and defendant elected not to do so.

Appellants Surinder Singh and Rajinder Kaur appeal from several trial court orders, including one denying their motion to set aside a judgment entered against them. The order denying the motion to set aside the judgment is the only order properly before us, and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing it. We therefore affirm.

Area 51 Productions, Inc. (Area 51), an event planning company, had a long-standing relationship with the City of Alameda (the City) to license the use of certain City property to Area 51 for events Area 51 helped plan and promote with third-party companies. The City relied on PM Realty Group, L.P. (PM) to assist it with managing these license arrangements. Due to various problems at or in connection with events put on by Area 51, the City decided to cease doing business with it in mid-2014.

Defendant Merle Keith Shaw was convicted of a sex offense in 1997, and as a result he was required to register as a sex offender. He was convicted of violating his registration obligation in 2008 and 2013. In May 2014, he was contacted by a San Jose police officer. The officer ran a records check and learned that defendant was a sex offender registrant who had last registered in November 2013 at a Peach Court address. Defendant told the officer that he had been transient and homeless since February 2014. He claimed that he did not know that he was required to register every 30 days when transient. Defendant was arrested and charged with failing to reregister as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (b)). In July 2014, he entered into a plea agreement under which he pleaded no contest to that count in exchange for probation with a six-month jail sentence. He was placed on probation in September 2014.

Appellants and cross-defendants Kris Eszlinger, William Clark, Paul Taylor, and Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios, LLC (Z-Ultimate) appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents and cross-complainants United Studios of Self Defense, Inc. (USSD), Bushido Martial Arts Supplies, Inc. (Bushido), Advantage Billing Co., Inc. (ABC) and Charles Mattera, awarding respondents $929,007.56 in compensatory damages jointly and severally against appellants and $125,000 in punitive damages separately against both Eszlinger and Clark. Appellants’ challenge rests mostly on their argument the evidence is insufficient to sustain the award of damages on any of the legal theories advanced at trial. We reject those arguments.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Richard T. Fields, Judge. Affirmed.
James John Salzbrunn, in pro. per.; and Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

L.H. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her daughter B.O. (the child). When it set the hearing on termination of parental rights, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and ordered that mother have reduced supervised visits a minimum of once a month. Mother then petitioned the juvenile court to vacate the hearing on terminating parental rights and to grant her an additional six months of reunification services. The juvenile court denied mother’s petition, terminated mother’s parental rights, and freed the child for adoption.Mother argues the juvenile court erred by reducing her visitation and denying her six more months of reunification services. Because the juvenile court reduced mother’s visitation when it set the hearing on termination of parental rights, mother was required to challenge the visitation order by timely filing a petition for writ of mandate.

Defendant Douglas Samuel Jessop was on felony probation for numerous counts arising from a violent incident with his parents. The district attorney filed a probation violation petition, alleging defendant had failed to register in a batterer’s treatment program. The trial court granted the petition, revoked defendant’s probation, and sentenced him to five years in state prison. But because the evidence does not reflect that defendant was ever ordered to enroll in or complete the program by a specific date, there is not substantial evidence from which to find he willfully violated the terms of his probation. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

A jury convicted defendant of two counts of sexual penetration of a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); counts 1 & 2) and one count of committing a forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court found true an allegation that defendant had a prior “strike” conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and sentenced defendant to an indeterminate prison term of 15 years to life, consecutive to an eight-year determinate term.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred by giving a general intent instruction with respect to counts 1 and 2, because a violation of section 288.7, subdivision (b) is a specific intent crime; (2) the trial court erred by excluding evidence that the victim had previously been molested, evidence of how she had sexual knowledge, and evidence that she had made a prior false allegation of being molested.

D.J. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders granting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and terminating his legal guardianship over L.R., the child at issue in this juvenile dependency matter.
D.J. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by terminating his legal guardianship, in that: (1) the juvenile court improperly relied on a social worker’s belief that D.J. had not internalized parenting and self-discipline skills; and (2) terminating the legal guardianship and offering reunification services to the child’s biological father was not in the child’s best interests. For reasons that we will explain, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

Dallas Starnes timely filed a claim with the City of Banning (City) alleging he suffered physical injuries when he was arrested by officers employed by the City’s police department. The City denied the claim and informed Starnes he had six months in which to file a lawsuit based on his allegations. Starnes attempted to timely file a complaint with the superior court against the named officers for negligence and intentional torts, but it was rejected for failure to include mandatory forms and failure to pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver. More than six months after the City denied Starnes’s claim, Starnes made a second attempt to file a complaint but it was again rejected, this time for failure to include a mandatory civil case cover sheet and for including an improper caption. Starnes’s complaint was not filed until almost exactly one year after the City had denied his claim. The trial court sustained without leave to amend the officers’ demurrer.

A jury convicted Michael Paul Rosas of second degree murder. It also found true the allegation that Rosas personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during the offense and proximately caused great bodily injury or death. The trial court sentenced Rosas to an indeterminate term of 40 years to life imprisonment.
Rosas appeals. He contends (1) the court prejudicially erred by refusing to allow him to introduce the former testimony of an unavailable witness, D.R., on the ground that Rosas did not exercise reasonable diligence to secure her attendance at trial; (2) if he did not exercise reasonable diligence to secure D.R.'s attendance, his trial counsel was ineffective and he is entitled to relief on that basis; and (3) the reasonable diligence requirement violates his constitutional rights to a fair trial and to present a complete defense under the circumstances here. We disagree with these contentions and therefore affirm.