CA Unpub Decisions

D.C. appeals the juvenile court's denial of her motion for nonsuit seeking dismissal of the petitions filed by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) on behalf of her minor children, N.C. and H.C., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). D.C. also challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings that N.C. and H.C. are minors described by section 300, subdivision (b)(1) and the court's conclusion that a 52-week child abuse course offered as part of D.C.'s reunification plan is appropriate to address the concerns that brought her family into the dependency system. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Roger Keith Nunn of attempted robbery and other related offenses after he pointed a replica firearm at his victim and threatened to kill her if she did not give him money. On appeal, Nunn contends the court erred in precluding his counsel from questioning the victim to expose her alleged motive to falsely accuse Nunn. He also contends he was prejudiced when the prosecutor improperly mischaracterized Nunn's testimony at trial during closing argument and the court erred when it overruled defense counsel's objection to the argument. We reject these contentions and affirm.

Appellant Karl Eric Winchell, a jewelry store owner who sold jewelry on consignment, was convicted by a jury of one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) and nine counts of embezzlement (§ 506) involving property or funds he misappropriated from different victims. The jury found that the value of the property misappropriated was more than $100,000 and less than $500,000. Winchell was sentenced to prison, but the court suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on formal probation for five years. The court also conducted a hearing to determine the amount of victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), ultimately ordering restitution in the total amount of $111,200. Winchell now appeals the restitution order, arguing that (1) he was deprived of his right to a jury trial on the amount set by the restitution order, and (2) there was inadequate evidence to support the amount set by the court.

In November 2016, appellant Jonathan Asselin-Normand, a 19-year-old proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against respondents America’s Best Value Inn Marysville and Anil Patel, alleging five causes of action based on respondents’ purported discriminatory practice of refusing to rent rooms to people under the age of 21. The complaint sought monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief. Shortly after commencing this action, appellant filed an ex parte application for temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin respondents from enforcing their minimum age requirement for renting rooms. Respondents filed an opposition, arguing, among other things, appellant’s ex parte application should be denied because appellant failed to demonstrate any imminent danger or irreparable harm.

Defendant James O. McChristian pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm in exchange for a two-year state prison sentence lid and dismissal of the remaining charge and two pending cases. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on a three-year term of probation. After an admitted violation, the court imposed a two-year prison sentence and suspended execution, reinstating probation. After finding a second violation, the court ordered the two-year sentence executed.
Defendant appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion by executing the previously suspended two-year prison sentence. In defendant’s view, the court mistakenly believed it lacked discretion to reinstate his probation after the second revocation. Disagreeing, we shall affirm.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant Alfred Hakobyan (defendant) in a three-count information with grand theft of personal property (count 1) and two counts of forgery relating to an item exceeding $950 in value (counts 2 and 3). Briefly described, the charges against defendant were predicated on evidence that defendant, in 2014, deposited checks drawn on a defunct account and then withdrew $11,878.79 before the bank where he deposited the funds learned the deposited checks were no good. The jury convicted defendant on all three of the charged counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to sixteen months in county jail. Specifically, the court imposed the low term of sixteen months on each count and ordered that the sentences on counts two and three would run concurrently with the sentence on count one. The court gave defendant 41 days of credit toward his sentence (21 days actual and 20 days good time/work time) and orally imposed requisite fines and fees.

Gabriel Aaron Gonzalez appeals from a postjudgment order denying his motion to reverse the sentencing order imposing a restitution fine and victim restitution following his conviction for second degree murder. Gonzalez’s appointed counsel, after reviewing the record, identified no meritorious issues. Our own independent review of the record and contentions raised by Gonzalez in a supplemental brief similarly found no error. We affirm the order.

Giovanna P. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to her children P.Z. and G.Z. Mother claims the court did not comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and its corresponding provisions under California law (see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). We affirm.

Defendant Anthony Bravo was convicted by a jury in 2006 of assault weapon possession (Pen. Code, former § 12280, subd. (b), count 1), firearm possession by a felon (former § 12021.1, count 2), and ammunition possession by a felon (§ 12316, subd. (b)(1), count 4). The trial court found defendant had prior convictions, including two strikes, and had served prior separate prison terms. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d).) Defendant was sentenced to three 25-years-to-life terms with the sentences on counts 2 and 4 stayed (§ 654). This court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Bravo (Oct. 11, 2007, B190558) [nonpub. opn.].)
Defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence pursuant to section 1170.126. The trial court denied the petition. The court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant was statutorily ineligible because he was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii); 1170.1

Defendant and appellant Jose DeJesus Horta was sentenced to 21 years 8 months in state prison following his conviction by jury of four felony offenses. Defendant contends on appeal: (1) the trial court did not understand that it had discretion to impose a concurrent sentence on defendant’s conviction for dissuading a witness; (2) he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel failed to argue at sentencing that the court had the discretion to impose a concurrent sentence on the charge of dissuading a witness; and (3) the trial court miscalculated presentence custody credits and imposed an unauthorized domestic violence fee. We modify the judgment to reflect that defendant is entitled to a total of 242 days of presentence custody and conduct credits, strike the domestic violence fee, and affirm in all other respects.

Gerald Theodore Smith was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon. In a bifurcated bench trial the court found Smith had suffered a prior conviction in Oklahoma that qualified as a serious felony under California’s three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Smith was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 11 years.
On appeal Smith contends the trial court erred in finding the prior Oklahoma conviction for kidnapping constituted a serious or violent felony under California law. We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

In 2013, defendant and appellant Merrie Hathaway (defendant) stipulated to an interlocutory judgment that partitioned real property she jointly owned with plaintiffs and respondents Five Points Temescal, LLC and Temescal Ranch Limited Partnership (plaintiffs), and with third party Hathaway Temescal, LLC (Hathaway). In 2016, the trial court confirmed the sale of the property, and defendant noticed this appeal from the order confirming the sale. Defendant’s contentions on appeal, however, primarily concern the earlier judgment of partition (or the complaint leading to that judgment)—which defendant did not timely appeal. We therefore conclude defendant presents no meritorious challenge to the order under review.

Real party in interest and respondent Los Angeles County Probation Department (the Department) fired plaintiff and appellant Victor Perez (plaintiff) for sexually assaulting a probationer under his supervision. Plaintiff appealed the discharge to respondent Civil Service Commission of the County of Los Angeles (the Commission), which sustained the decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of mandate in Los Angeles County Superior Court challenging the Commission’s decision on the ground that it was not supported by the evidence. The superior court denied the petition after an independent review of the administrative record. We consider whether substantial evidence supports the superior court’s decision to uphold plaintiff’s discharge.

After a bench trial, plaintiff Walter Fry was awarded $10,000 from defendant Matthew Skinner for breach of contract. However, the trial court denied an award of attorney fees under the contract, finding neither party was a prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making that determination.