CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Dylan Koski Collins challenges his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident. He argues the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he violated a statutory duty; the court misinstructed on the statutory duties under the statute; and the court erroneously allowed the prosecutor to introduce evidence of a prior misdemeanor hit-and-run offense. Defendant also contends the record does not support consecutive sentences for a separate misdemeanor case. We affirm.

Defendants International Motors Exchange, Inc. (doing business as IMEX, Inc. and Glendale Auto Gallery), IMEX Trading Corporation (doing business as IMEX Remarketing), and David Ohanjanyan appeal from a judgment. Plaintiff Nextgear Capital, Inc. had a lending agreement with defendants to provide financing for the purchase of vehicles. Defendants received a line of credit under the agreement, secured by 26 vehicles, and subsequently defaulted on their payments. Plaintiff then sued defendants for breach of written agreement and guaranty, common count, wrongful possession of personal property, and conversion. Following trial, the court found in favor of plaintiff as to the cause of action for conversion of the 26 vehicles.

Appointed counsel for minor S.B. asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Minor was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from minor. Our review reveals no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Minor was adjudged a ward of the court on about February 1, 2013, when he was 11 years old. He moved to Las Vegas with his mother, where he was arrested for several violations of the law. In May 2015, he violated probation and was thereafter committed to Caliente Youth Center, a secure facility in Nevada.

The juvenile court found that four children, now ages 13, 12, three and a half, and one and a half, came within its jurisdiction on the basis they had suffered, or there was a substantial risk they would suffer, serious physical harm or illness. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (a), (b).) (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise specified.) The court subsequently found that the children could not be returned to the custody and care of their mother (§ 361, subd. (c)), and that their mother should not receive reunification services (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6)).

Mother appeals from juvenile court orders terminating her parental rights to her two minor children and choosing adoption as their permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She contends we must reverse the orders because the court erred in finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption did not apply. (Id., subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
We conclude there is substantial evidence mother had a beneficial parental relationship with the children. Nonetheless, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in determining the relationship did not provide a compelling reason for finding that termination of her parental rights would be detrimental to the children. We, therefore, affirm the orders.

Mayer Brown and Donald M. Falk for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
O'Melveny & Myers, Michael Yoder, Matthew W. Close, Matthew Kline and Brittany Rogers; Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig, Matthew S. Dontzin, Tibor L. Nagy, Jr. and Tracy O. Appleton for Objectors and Respondents.
This case arises out of the labyrinth of residential mortgage-backed securities and related financial instruments and arrangements that distributed the risk of default of subprime and other mortgages and were involved in the subprime mortgage crisis of a decade ago. Real party in interest and appellant Assured Guaranty Corp. (Assured) appeals an order instructing plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee (Trustee) for the note trust formed under the indenture dated as of August 22, 2007, related to the AAA Trust 2007-2 trust 2ecurities, Series 2007-2 (Indenture), to reject Assured's allocation instruction and follow the definition of the term "Loss" as set forth in t

Justin Beavers (father) and Shanteria M. Lee (mother) have one child together, a daughter (daughter), who was approximately five years old at the time father filed a motion seeking sole legal and physical custody of her. The trial court denied the motion, instead awarding mother sole legal and physical custody of daughter and granting father supervised visitation. Apparently, the juvenile court also denied father’s motion for reconsideration.
Father asserts the juvenile court erred, although the precise grounds of asserted error are unclear. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff LaVada James filed suit against the County of Alameda alleging various claims in connection with the administration of her food stamp benefits. She now appeals an order dismissing her first amended complaint with prejudice after the court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm.

Alberto Lizarraga was arrested and placed in Kern County jail for a felony, apparently attempted murder. While in custody he incurred three additional charges. In this case, a jury found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon on a correctional


* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Smith, J.

officer. Lizarraga concedes he committed an act that could be construed as an assault, but argues the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence because the “weapon” used in the assault was not a deadly weapon. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

In September 2008, appellants Anis and Ghousia Shaikh (when referred to collectively, the Shaikhs) bought a home in Fremont under a city program to benefit
low-income people, in connection with which they took out a loan with Wells Fargo Bank. The Shaikhs defaulted after eight payments, and the house was ultimately sold at foreclosure in August 2011. Respondents Brian and Nancy Martin (when referred to collectively, the Martins) bought it. The Shaikhs refused to leave, and the Martins filed an unlawful detainer action. The Shaikhs’ attempts to thwart that action were ultimately unavailing, and the unlawful detainer action was set for trial in February 2012. An
eve-of-trial, court supervised settlement conference led to a settlement agreement, under which the Shaikhs could repurchase the house under specified conditions. The Shaikhs did not meet those conditions, and they were evicted.

Appellants Steven and Marcia Rempell appeal from a judgment and cost award following a five-week trial of their personal injury action brought against Robert Hofmann, who was employed by O.C. Jones and Sons, Inc. (respondents). Appellants argue the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial based upon juror misconduct and attorney misconduct, and in failing to admit expert evidence at trial. Appellants further argue they should be granted a new trial because the jury failed to award damages for loss of consortium and for past and future lost earnings. Finally, appellants argue the trial court improperly awarded costs to respondents.
We conclude appellants have forfeited the jury misconduct claim for failing to object before the jury was discharged and for failing to file a timely motion for a new trial. Appellants have waived their attorney misconduct claim on appeal by neglecting to comply with fundamental rules of appellate procedure. We further conclude the trial cour

Following a jury trial, defendant and appellant Kenneth Lea Wittrock was convicted of nine counts of committing lewd acts on the body of a child under 14 (Penal Code, § 288, subd. (a) ), two counts of inducing a minor to perform prohibited acts (§ 311.4, subd. (c)) and one count of possession of sexual matter depicting a minor (§ 311.11, subd. (a)). For eight of the nine section 288 offenses, the jury found true the enhancement allegation that defendant had committed the offense against more than one victim. (§ 667.61, subds. (e)(4), (j)(2).) The jury acquitted Wittrock of one count of section 288, subdivision (a) (section 288(a)).

A jury convicted Phillip Vanness of committing sexual penetration and lewd or lascivious acts against a five-year-old girl. He was sentenced to 45 years to life in prison. His appeal concerns two evidentiary rulings and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Vanness alleges the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged sexual offenses pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108. Two of his nieces from a prior marriage, both of whom were adult women at the time of trial, were permitted to testify that he molested them when they were prepubescent girls. We conclude the trial court acted within its authority on this issue.

On March 3, 2005, defendant and appellant Jorge A. Millan Rodriguez (defendant) pled guilty to unlawful intercourse by a person over 21 under Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (d). Defendant, as a person over 21, admitted to having sex with a person under the age of 16. The trial court sentenced defendant to probation for 36 months, to be served on consecutive weekends in the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s Weekender Program.
On December 16, 2016, defendant filed a petition for dismissal under Penal Code section 1203.4, and a petition for a reduction of his felony conviction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b). As mitigation, defendant provided in his petition that he married the victim and had two children with her. Moreover, defendant noted that both violations of probation occurred because he was in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and was deported so he was unable to meet his probation officer or check in for h