CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted Felix Escobar of elder abuse; aggravated assault; violation of a protective order; and battery (§ 242). Escobar admitted a strike prior and one prison prior. The court sentenced Escobar to an eight-year prison term. In this appeal, Escobar challenges only the trial court's decision to admit Escobar's previous unlawful act of assaulting his then 77-year-old mother about 15 months before his current attack on the same victim. The prior act was admitted as propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1109. Escobar contends the court abused its discretion in admitting such evidence, that it was unduly prejudicial and that he was denied due process. We will find the trial court acted well within its discretion in admitting the prior act evidence. There was no error, hence no denial of due process.

Defendant Paul Emanual McBean entered pleas as part of a global plea agreement in case Nos. 15F03813 (hereafter 3813), 15F03883 (3883), and 15F06206 (6206), in exchange for a stipulated state prison sentence of seven years four months, which the trial court imposed. Defendant only filed a notice of appeal in case No. 3813, but his appellate counsel sought and obtained an order from this court construing the notice of appeal to include case Nos. 3883 and 6206.
Defendant contends the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence in case No. 6206 by imposing one-third the midterm of three years, or one year doubled, rather than one-third the midterm of two years, or eight months doubled. Although the Attorney General agrees, the contention is not cognizable on appeal because defendant challenges a sentence that was part of the global plea agreement without obtaining a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)

Defendant Mario David Thompson appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act). (See Pen. Code, § 1170.126.) He contends (1) the trial court erred in finding that resentencing him posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and (2) the trial court should have applied section 1170.18’s definition of unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and any failure of trial counsel to preserve this contention constitutes ineffective assistance. We conclude the trial court’s finding was not an abuse of discretion and it applied the appropriate definition of danger to public safety. Accordingly, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Andre Joseph Washington on one count of attempted criminal threat (Pen. Code, §§ 422, 664) and one count of felony vandalism. The trial court found true the allegations defendant had a prior serious felony conviction, and had served a prior prison sentence. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 12 years 8 months in prison.

Mitchel J. (Father) and K.M. (Mother) appeal a juvenile court order, which terminated their parental rights over their daughter, Hailey J. They contend the order should be reversed because the juvenile court erred in declining to apply the parent-child relationship exception. They further contend the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). We conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights to allow for proper ICWA notice, but otherwise affirm.

David Izaguirre appeals the judgment following his conviction for the premeditated murder of Alicia Espinoza. He seeks reversal of his conviction on the grounds (1) the prosecutor misstated the reasonable doubt standard during voir dire and rebuttal closing argument; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of certain autopsy photographs; (3) the trial court erroneously admitted appellant’s Honduran identification card; and (4) the prosecutor improperly told jurors to report if other jurors were not “deliberating the way they’re supposed to be deliberating.” We find no prejudicial error and affirm.

Andre Costa Soares appeals from the December 7, 2016 judgment revoking probation in two matters, case No. BA440274 and case No. BA440980. Following our independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we conclude no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered after a bench trial. It appears the plaintiff and appellant, Jose Flores, contends the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence. Because Flores failed to provide this court with a transcript of the trial or an appropriate substitute, we are unable to evaluate the merit, if any, of his challenge to the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

In convicting defendant and appellant Kaylen Chandler (defendant) for transporting methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine for sale, the jury heard evidence defendant told a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputy she possessed the drugs and planned to sell them. At an earlier pre-trial hearing, the trial court refused to exclude testimony about her admissions to the deputy based on the defense contention that “the court should have uncertainty about whether the [Miranda ] admonition was properly given and at the proper time . . . .” We consider whether defendant’s convictions must be reversed because, as defendant now asserts, (1) the deputy’s Miranda advisement failed to inform her she had a right to an attorney before any questioning, and (2) the deputy deliberately elicited incriminating statements in a two-step interrogation prohibited by Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U.S. 600 (Seibert).

Plaintiffs Wen Hong Xia, Xian Xian Zang, and Chunyan Hou were waitresses at a restaurant in Monterey Park between April 2010 and March 2014. During that time, the restaurant was sold to two different corporations with different owners and was renamed twice. Following their departure from the restaurant, plaintiffs sued the three corporations that owned the restaurant between 2011 and 2014, individuals who owned shares in those corporations, and an individual who worked at the restaurant but never had an ownership interest. Plaintiffs alleged failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and conversion of tips, among other things. The first two corporations that owned the restaurant were dissolved before litigation and plaintiffs obtained default judgment against them. As to the remaining defendants, the trial court granted summary adjudication of two of plaintiffs’ 12 causes of action, and the remainder proceeded to a bench trial.

Plaintiffs in this case—a married couple and associated Limited Liability Companies—prevailed after a jury trial on their claim that they had a joint venture with defendant to develop and sell a luxury property in Malibu, splitting the profits. According to plaintiffs, they were to provide the property and construct a home on it, while defendant was to finance the construction. Title was transferred from an LLC to defendant in order for him to obtain financing. After the home was built, defendant claimed there was no such joint venture, and instead the property was being built for his benefit. The jury awarded plaintiffs $1.1 million on their breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims, and the trial court thereafter ruled that defendant will keep the property without further claim by plaintiffs. Defendant challenges several rulings. We reject all his arguments.

California and federal law now favor arbitration as an efficient, cost-effective alternative to litigation. An employer and employee may voluntarily agree to arbitrate their legal disputes, but as with other contracts, courts will not enforce agreements that violate public policy. While plaintiff and respondent Khrysta Craighead worked at Midway Rent A Car (Midway), the company adopted a policy requiring the parties to arbitrate most types of legal claims arising out of the employment relationship. After Craighead filed a wrongful employment termination suit against Midway, the company sought to compel arbitration under its policy. But the trial court denied Midway’s petition because it found Craighead had not agreed to the arbitration policy (rather, it had been imposed on her by Midway) and, in any event, the policy was unenforceable because it was a contract of adhesion so disproportionately favorable to Midway as to be unconscionable.

This is an appeal from the Superior Court of San Mateo County after judgment was entered in favor of respondents Raps Hayward LLC, doing business as Pacific Euro Hotel (Raps Hayward) and Ish Bhatt (Bhatt). The judgment followed the sustaining of respondents’ demurrer without leave to amend. We have reviewed the pleadings and briefs filed and conclude the trial court’s decision was correct. We therefore affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Damon Hughey of multiple crimes against Katie Doe: assault with intent to commit a sexual offense during the commission of a first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (b)), first degree residential burglary (id., §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), attempted forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object (id., §§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A), 664), and sexual battery by restraint (id., § 243.4, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to a total term of eight years to life in state prison. We reverse Hughey’s burglary conviction, but otherwise affirm.