CA Unpub Decisions

After his brother died, Christopher J. Bakes (Uncle) helped his brother’s widow Marlo Flores-Bakes (Mother) raise her three children; one is still a minor. Uncle formed the belief Mother was not a fit parent. He hired an investigator to follow her, had a GPS tracker installed in the car he gave her to use, and monitored the mobile telephone he gave her to use. He filed the instant guardianship petition, and submitted his investigator’s report and other material to Child Protective Services (CPS). A dependency case was filed in which he unsuccessfully sought de facto parent status. He appealed in that case. Meanwhile, a hearing on his guardianship petition took place, at which the probate court also refused to classify him as a de facto parent. The probate court’s order is the subject of the instant appeal. We previously denied his motion to consolidate the appeals.

Martin J. Coyne, Howard Weston, and the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute appeal from a post-judgment order denying their motion for attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 after they successfully challenged a city ordinance. They contend the trial court erred in concluding that the monetary value of the case outweighed the costs of the litigation, such that an attorney fee award was inappropriate. They also contend they met all other requisites for an award. We will affirm the order.

James A. Zachman sued PayPal, Inc. (PayPal), for negligence and aiding and abetting fraud stemming from a dispute between Zachman and his former business partner over control of the business’s PayPal account. The trial court sustained PayPal’s demurrer to Zachman’s complaint without leave to amend. We affirm.
Zachman’s cause of action for negligence was filed more than two years after his claim accrued, and it was therefore barred by the statute of limitations. Zachman’s cause of action for aiding and abetting fraud failed to allege PayPal’s substantial assistance or encouragement of the alleged intentional tort. Zachman failed both in the trial court and on appeal to show how he might amend the complaint to overcome these failures.

Grace Wilson appeals a judgment entered after the trial court issued a civil harassment restraining order against her and awarded $1,500 in statutory prevailing party attorney fees to Veada Reed. Wilson contends the trial court erred by issuing the restraining order because (1) she did not get a fair hearing; (2) insufficient evidence supports the order; and (3) she fulfilled the terms of an offer the trial court made—that if she attended a court-approved anger management course within six months, the court would dismiss the case. These contentions fail, largely because Wilson—a licensed California attorney whom the trial court considered "very intelligent"—did not provide an appellate record sufficient to show error.

In his second appeal related to a 2011 judgment for robbery and possession of a firearm by a felon, Derrick Clayton White challenges the denial of his new trial motion. White’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. White then submitted a supplemental brief contending he was deprived of a fair trial because of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. We affirm.

A few weeks after robbing a delivery person of medical marijuana, Richard Verdugo unsuccessfully attempted to burglarize a medical marijuana store by using a propane torch to soften the locked metal door so he could pry it open with a crowbar. A jury convicted Verdugo of robbery, arson, attempted burglary, related drug and weapons charges, and resisting arrest. Outside the jury's presence, Verdugo admitted a serious felony prior conviction which is a strike prior. The court sentenced Verdugo to 26 years in prison.

Patrick Cole Scarpaci appeals the trial court’s order denying his request for conditional release for outpatient status pursuant to Penal Code section 1603. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in finding he had not met his burden of demonstrating he could be safely treated in the community. We conclude, after careful consideration of the expert testimony, the nature and circumstances of appellant’s crime, and the ability of appellant to be properly supervised in the community, the trial court did not err in denying appellant release. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant David Hernandez Savala of possession of stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and second degree burglary (§ 459). The trial court found defendant had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and five prior convictions for which he had served prison terms without remaining free from custody for a period of five years (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Along with various fines and fees, defendant was sentenced to serve 10 years in state prison.
In his opening brief, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence taken from his residence after the police conducted a warrantless search, (2) his motion to strike his prior serious felony conviction should have been granted in the interests of justice, and (3) his sentence for possession of stolen property should be stayed under section 654. In his reply brief, defendant abandons his contention that the sentence for possession of stolen propert

A petition for revocation of parole filed October 27, 2016 alleged that Sonny Rios Rosas (Rosas) had originally been convicted of oral copulation by force of fear and/or injury and sentenced to 6 years. Rios had also been convicted of the rape of three adult female victims, using violence and gagging all his victims, and of annoying phone calls and obscene threats. Rosas was released on supervision on January 29, 2015, with supervision to expire on October 27, 2018. His parole officer, Sherlonda Washington, stated that he had received, signed and acknowledged his notice and conditions of parole.

Defendant Robert Rameses appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Proposition 47 petition for resentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) He contends there is insufficient evidence to support the ruling. We shall affirm.

On January 22, 1996, defendant and appellant Terrell Patterson was convicted of carjacking with a firearm use enhancement (Pen. Code, §§ 215, 12022.5) At a separate court trial, prior serious felony conviction and prior prison term allegations were found true (§§ 667, subds. (a)-(i), 667.5) He was sentenced to a prison term of 27 years.
Following the enactment of Proposition 47, Patterson filed a petition to have his felony conviction designated as a misdemeanor. On July 11, 2016, the trial court denied Patterson’s petition on the ground he was not eligible for Proposition 47 relief given the nature of his conviction. Patterson timely appealed from the order of denial.
We appointed counsel to represent Patterson on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. We directed counsel to send the record on appeal and a copy of

O.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order committing him to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) Appellant contends the order was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

Ian Estatoy Van Natta (defendant) appeals from a judgment sentencing him to four years, four months in state prison after he pleaded no contest to three sex offenses involving a minor. We affirm.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), defendant Henry Polin Morales pled no contest to transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Id., § 11378), misdemeanor possession of smoking paraphernalia (Id., § 11364), misdemeanor driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor destruction of evidence (Pen. Code, § 135), and admitted he had two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c)–(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(e)). In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court dismissed the prior strike allegations and sentenced defendant to a total prison term of two years. On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.