CA Unpub Decisions

David S. Currey appeals from an order that revoked his probation and imposed a prison sentence after he admitted violating the terms of his probation. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.

A jury convicted Ernesto Dominguez Cuellar of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and found true various sentencing enhancement allegations. The trial court sentenced Cuellar to state prison.
Cuellar appeals, contending the court violated his federal constitutional rights “to due process and [a] fair trial” by refusing to allow a third defense expert to testify regarding a palm print found on the gun. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Christopher Michael Croucher of possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Pen. Code, § 11378.) The trial court sentenced him to the middle term of two years in state prison.
Defendant contends he received ineffective assistance because his counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s misstatements of law during closing argument. We conclude defendant’s ineffective assistance claim fails because he cannot demonstrate prejudice.

The only issue raised in this appeal is that the trial court incorrectly stated the amount of a restitution fine at sentencing ($280 instead of $240). The abstract of judgment shows the fine as $240; the parties agree that is the correct amount, and we agree with the parties.
Defendant Chase Cody Cotton asks this court to reduce the fine to $240. We shall do so. We also modify the sentence to reflect the correct method of calculating the sentence on subordinate terms. We affirm the judgment as so modified.

Matthew Aaron Canales appeals from the denial of a post-judgment motion to seal and destroy the arrest records from a criminal case that the People dismissed at the complaint stage. Our independent review of the record has revealed no arguable appellate issues, and we affirm.

Between August 2014 and November 2014, defendant Sean Michael Blackshear lived with A.W. and her four-year-old son in her home. About eight months after defendant moved out, the son revealed to A.W. that defendant had put his penis in the son’s mouth and anus.
Defendant entered a negotiated no contest plea to lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts (sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger, oral copulation with a child 10 years of age or younger) and allegation (substantial sexual conduct with a child under the age of 14 years). He also entered a Cruz waiver. If he abided by the conditions of release on his own recognizance pending sentencing, he would receive no more than three years in state prison. In the event he violated the conditions of release, he would receive the upper term of eight years.
The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to state p

This case involves a conspiracy on the part of defendant Sami Hanna Antar and codefendant Miguel Venegas—its ringleader —also working together with and through members Ricardo Duron, Ronnie Lee Fults II, Jose Montes, and/or Paulina Aguirre—to commit a series of residential burglaries in San Diego County between about August 2012 and July 2013 (the conspiracy). Antar did not enter any of the myriad of homes burglarized during the conspiracy; rather, it was alleged he acted as the "fence" or as a depository of the "loot" stolen in the burglaries.

Plaintiff Ivan Rene Moore and defendant Kimberly Martin-Bragg were “longtime domestic partners,” but their former relationship has been eclipsed by a series of legal travails between them. In this matter, Moore successfully sued Martin-Bragg for conversion of personal property, trespass to chattel, and damages under Civil Code section 1965. Martin-Bragg challenges the $3.15 million jury verdict in Moore’s favor. The inadequacy of the appellate record as well as Martin-Bragg’s failure to brief a number of the issues she raised compel that we affirm.

I.W. (Mother) appeals an order terminating her parental rights in the juvenile dependency case of her minor son Nickolas W. She contends the court erred by determining that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption did not apply. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We disagree and affirm.

In this juvenile dependency case, defendant and appellant Jeremiah W. (Father) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to his young daughter N.M. (Daughter). In particular, Father argues that, prior to termination of his parental rights, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to comply with the juvenile court’s visitation plan for Father. As a result, Father claims he was unable to establish an exception to the termination of parental rights based on regular visitation. He claims his due process rights were violated. As discussed below, however, we conclude Father has waived his arguments on appeal. Therefore, we affirm.

B.B., mother, and K.S., father of the minor J.B. appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) They contend the court erred in failing to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption. Finding the burden of proving the exception was not met, we shall affirm the orders terminating parental rights.

Appellant Christine Chang appeals from the trial court’s denial of her May 2016 request for a civil harassment restraining order against respondent Robin Andrews. Chang alleged that Andrews, who resides in a neighboring apartment, engaged in a series of abusive behaviors starting in February 2013. Most prominently, Chang alleged Andrews sent gang members to assault Chang and her dog.

On August 31, 2012, Samantha Winston awoke from surgery at Mercy Hospital (Mercy) to remove an epidural abscess caused by methicillin-resistant staph aureus (MRSA) to find herself paralyzed. Before her admission to Mercy, Winston had been treated at Kern Medical Center (KMC), a facility run by the County of Kern (County), for a MRSA infection. Dr. Navin Amin evaluated and treated Winston at KMC.
A year later, Winston served the County with a claim under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) (the Claims Act) and initiated this action by filing a complaint for medical malpractice. The County rejected Winston’s claim as untimely. In a subsequently filed first amended complaint against the County, Mercy, surgeon Dr. Timothy Wiebe, and Bakersfield Neuroscience & Spine Institute, Winston alleged the defendants were negligent in failing to diagnose her MRSA infection and in rendering surgical services. The trial court granted the County’s motion for summary judgmen

Plaintiff and appellant Karen Tellier sued defendants and respondents Greg Hendel and Ronda Lymann, who do business as Guilty Tans (the Salon). Hendel and Lymann were sued in their individual and business capacities. The lawsuit concerned causes of action for negligence and premises liability. After a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Hendel, Lymann, and the Salon (collectively, defendants). Tellier contends the trial court’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the judgment.