CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Byron Montenegro (defendant) of felony arson for setting the mattress in his prison cell on fire. Defendant’s appointed attorney on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 that raised no issues and asked us to independently review the record. This court invited defendant to personally submit a supplemental brief and he has done so, presenting ten contentions (without citation to the record or pertinent authority) that in his view warrant reversal. In the paragraphs that follow, we summarize the facts and explain why we reject defendant’s contentions.

Tom D. Soumas, individually, and Tom D. Soumas and Barbara L. Soumas, as co-trustees of the Soumas Family Trust, appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of Wolfe Air Aviation, Ltd., Hugh E. McColgan and McColgan & Vanni to the complaint for damages without leave to amend.[1]The action is the latest incarnation of a protracted dispute over a 1995 money judgment in an action for breach of contract. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs, Wei Hao and Faxue Gong, appeal from a summary judgment. Plaintiffs sued defendants, L.F. George Properties Corporation, George Lam, and Millbrae Paradise, LLC for:Labor Code violations; a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; wrongful termination;false imprisonment; negligent hiring; negligence; and intentional and negligent emotional distress infliction. Defendants moved for summary judgment or, as to each individual cause of action, summary adjudication of issues. Defendants argued: the Labor Code causes of action had no merit because there was no evidence they were plaintiffs’ employers; there was no evidence to support the false imprisonment claims; and plaintiffs’ tort claims were barred because they filed worker’s compensation claims. Defendants contended worker’s compensation was plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy for the tort claims. Defendants’ summary judgment motion was granted in its entirety.

Plaintiffs and appellants are writers and producers who entered into a profit participation agreement with defendant and respondent Walt Disney Pictures regarding their work on the television series, Home Improvement. The parties’ agreement includes an “incontestability” clause, which requires a participant to object in specific detail to Disney’s quarterly participation statements within 24 months after the date sent, and to initiate a legal action within six months after the expiration of that 24-month period. In July 2008, following an audit of Disney’s books of account, the producers objected to the participation statements that were sent between June 2001 and March 2006. After Disney rejected the objections as untimely, the producers filed this action, alleging that Disney failed to properly account for and pay them the amounts owed under the parties’ agreement. The trial court granted Disney’s motion for summary adjudication on the ground that the producers’ c

Ronald King appeals from his judgment of conviction of one count of first degree murder with special circumstance findings (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), two counts of first degree robbery (§ 211), one count of identity theft (§ 530.5), one count of second degree burglary (§ 459), and one count of first degree burglary (§ 459). Among other arguments, King asserts that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the felony-murder special circumstance findings, (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of gang involvement in the crimes, and (3) the consecutive sentences imposed on the identity theft and second degree burglary counts violated section 654. We reverse in part and otherwise affirm the judgment as modified.

Defendant Lamar Harbison entered a plea of no contest to carrying an unregistered, loaded handgun and was placed on probation. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress on the grounds that he was illegally arrested and searched after the car in which he was a passenger was legally detained. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m).)[1]We affirm.

Following a preliminary hearing held on February 18, 2015, the Solano County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant Jarvis Daney Porter with the felony offense of assault on his fatherby means likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).[1]) The information included an allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
On April 1, 2015, the criminal proceedings were suspended after defendant’s trial counsel informed the court that he had a doubt as to defendant’s competency to stand trial. (§ 1368.) Four weeks later, on April 28, 2015, the trial court declared defendantnot competent to stand trial and several months later on August 31, 2015, the trial court reinstated the criminal proceedings after explaining its reasons for declaring that defendant’s competency had been restored.

Steven A., the presumed father (Father) of the minor N.A. (Minor) appeals from the juvenile court’s order during a post-permanency plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3)[1]reducing the frequency of his visitation with Minor.[2] He contends the juvenile court abuseditsdiscretion. We shall affirm the order.

Steven A., the presumed father (Father) of the minor N.A. (Minor) appeals from the juvenile court’s order during a post-permanency plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3)[1]reducing the frequency of his visitation with Minor.[2] He contends the juvenile court abuseditsdiscretion. We shall affirm the order.

In accordance with Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta), defendant Toriano Germaine Hudson, Sr., represented himself before the jury that in June 2015 convicted him of four vehicle-related offenses, two of which were felonies and involved the personal infliction of great bodily injury. Defendant was still representing himself when the trial court (Hon. Patricia Scanlon) found true allegations that defendant had four prior felony convictions, two of which qualified as “strikes” for purposes of the “Three Strikes” law. Defendant was still representing himself when Judge Scanlon sentenced him to state prison for a term of 35 years to life, with concurrent terms for the other three convictions.
On this timely appeal, defendant’s primary contention is that it was prejudicial error for the trial court (Hon. Terri Mockler) to determine that he was mentally competent, and therefore to permit him to dispense with appointed counsel and represent himself.

The marriage of Elizabeth and Christopher Wright was dissolved by a judgment filed in June 2013.[1]Elizabethnow appeals from two postjudgment orders, one denying her request to modify spousal report andthe other designating a listing broker to sell the family residence. She argues that the superior court erred in issuing those orders after declining to require Christopher to comply in full with a subpoena seeking certain of his financial records. We will affirm.

This is an appeal from judgment following the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs Lonnie and Janet Ratliff’s first amended complaint against defendants EMC Mortgage, LLC, Tiffany Skaife, vice-president of EMC Mortgage, LLC, and Homesales, Inc. (collectively, EMC). Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint asserts claims for unfair business practices and declaratory relief, and seeks injunctive relief and general damages.[1] The trial court sustained EMC’s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend after finding, among other things, that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims, requiring dismissal. We affirm.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.