CA Unpub Decisions

Wayne Fred Brown appeals a judgment of conviction entered after he expressly waived his constitutional rights, pleaded guilty to burglary, and admitted serving a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced Brown to a 28-month term in county jail, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded him 204 days of presentence custody credit.
According to evidence presented at the preliminary examination, Brown forced open the door of a church office in the morning of September 26, 2016, and took a guitar, headphones, and a tuner. A surveillance video captured the image of Brown leaving the church with the guitar which he then placed inside a vehicle. A teacher at the church observed Brown walking away from the church with the guitar. During a police interview conducted later, Brown admitted entering the church and taking the guitar.

A jury convicted Dmitry Kogan of arson of property of another. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d).) The trial court placed Kogan on summary probation for 36 months and included a term that he serve 360 days in county jail. We affirmed Kogan’s conviction. (People v. Kogan (July 25, 2017, B277702) [nonpub. opn.].)

Defendant Silvio Hernandez appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for recall and resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no legal issues and requested that this court conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the order.

This appeal concerns three minor children who are half siblings: E.M., M.B. and A.B. Appellant Angelica E. (mother) is the mother of all three children. Appellant Brian B. (father B.) is the father of M.B. and A.B. Appellant E.M. is the eldest sibling, and her father, Felix M., is not a party to this appeal. After a contested joint permanency planning hearing on May 9, 2017, M.B. and A.B. were freed for adoption, with their foster parents identified as the prospective adoptive parents. E.M. was placed in legal guardianship with her paternal grandmother.
E.M., who was granted standing to participate in the permanency planning hearing as to her two half siblings, appeals the juvenile court’s denial of her claim that the sibling relationship exception applied to preclude adoption of M.B. and A.B. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights as to M.B. and A.B., contending the sibling relationship exception applied.

In November 2015, defendant and appellant Dajon Shaquille Blackman was charged by information with three counts of robbery in the second degree (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c)). It was further alleged defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the robberies within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b), and that a principal was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). The robberies took place on two different days and involved three victims.

After trial, Malcolm Joseph Moore was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court found true allegations he had suffered two prior “strike” convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (b)) and served five prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court dismissed one of the two prior strikes, stayed the prison term enhancements, and sentenced appellant to 11 years in state prison. Appellant appealed the judgment.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We affirm.

Defendant Elida Espiquita pled no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. She was sentenced to formal probation and ordered to pay restitution to the victim for medical costs and lost wages. On appeal, she argues there was no substantial evidence supporting the court’s award of lost wages. We disagree and affirm.

Annette A. (mother) is the mother of Emilio L. (born in July 2016). Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders declaring Emilio a juvenile court dependent and removing him from her care. We conclude that the court’s orders are supported by substantial evidence, and thus we affirm.

U.R. (father) appeals from the court’s order denying his request to return his son, E.R., to his custody and terminating his reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 366.21 and 366.22. We dismiss father’s appeal because it has been rendered moot by further rulings in the dependency court while the appeal was pending.
In April 2015, the juvenile court sustained an amended petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), finding dependency jurisdiction over E.R. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The court removed E.R. from father’s custody. Following contested proceedings pursuant to sections 366.21, subdivisions (e) and (f), and 366.22, the court issued an order on January 11, 2017 releasing E.R. to his mother’s custody, but denying father’s request for custody and terminating father’s reunification services. Father appealed.

Defendant James Rozelle appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of multiple counts of stalking, burglary, vandalism, and criminal threats. His counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On July 25, 2017, we sent defendant a letter informing him of the nature of the brief that had been filed and advising him that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief setting forth issues he wished this court to consider. Defendant has not filed a response with the court.

The City of Simi Valley (the City) appeals from a judgment confirming a binding arbitration award of $533,372.62 in favor of Negele & Associates (N&A). The City argues the award should be vacated because (1) the parties did not agree in writing to binding arbitration and (2) the arbitrators exceeded their powers by awarding an amount greater than the contract rate in violation of public policy. We affirm.

Defendant Jose Duenas was convicted of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger, attempted sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger, and oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the count for sexual intercourse or sodomy, and we find that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. We therefore affirm the conviction.
Defendant also challenges the court’s order that he undergo testing for HIV/AIDS; the Attorney General agrees this order was erroneous. We therefore reverse the court’s order regarding testing. Defendant further asserts that the abstract of judgment incorrectly characterized his conviction on one count of attempted sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger; the Attorney General agrees and the record supports defendant’s assertion. We therefore direct the trial court to correct the abstract of

Plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. (Matheson) and Sims Welding Supply Co., Inc. (Sims) (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court’s order denying their special motion to strike, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the cross-complaint filed by defendants, cross-complainants and respondents David Johnson (Johnson), Joshua Drury, Melissa Johnson, Joel Giacomino, Allen “AC” Goins, Catrinus “Dutch” Vandervelde, Steve Prickett (collectively, the individual defendants), and Westair Gases & Equipment, Inc. (Westair). We affirm the trial court’s order.

The County of Santa Barbara (County) and Patricia Dark appeal an order denying, in part, a special motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 ; Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 392-396 (Baral); Cho v. Chang (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 521, 523.) We affirm.