CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant, Luis Martinez, of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) [1] committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). The jury further found a principal in the commission of the offense personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing the victim’s death. (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1).) Defendant was sentenced to 50 years to life in state prison.
Defendant was one of nine people charged with the murder. He did not directly perpetrate the murder. He was convicted as an aider and abettor. One theory of criminal liability was that the murder was a natural and probable consequence of the target offense of an assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. Defendant was alleged to have aided and abetted in the aggravated assault, the target offense. On appeal, defendant argues the jury should have been required to find that the willful, deliberate and premeditated aspect of murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the aggravated assault. In this regard, defendant argues the jury should have been so instructed. And defendant argues the jury should have been required to find willful, deliberate and premeditated murder was a natural and probable consequence of the aggravated assault, the target offense. This issue is presently before our Supreme Court. We conclude the jury was properly instructed. We affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Dewayne Michael Tyars (Tyars), Justin David Tyson (Tyson) and Kenneth Melvin Battle (Battle) were charged with first degree burglary and possessing burglary tools. Tyars was also charged with receiving stolen property. They filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a detention following a traffic stop. After the motion was denied, they entered pleas and appealed.
Tyars contends that the motion to suppress should have been granted. We disagree. Our review of the record reveals that his detention was permissible under Fourth Amendment principles.
Appointed counsel for Battle and Tyson each filed briefs pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that raised no issues and requested that we conduct an independent review of the record. We notified Battle on October 16, 2012, and Tyson on August 30, 2012, of the briefs filed by counsel and gave each of them an opportunity, within 30 days, to file a brief or letter identifying arguments for us to consider. That time elapsed, and they submitted no briefs or letters. We reviewed the entire record and found neither error nor arguable issues.
The judgments are affirmed.

Kathleen Smith, appeals from a November 15, 2011 order terminating jurisdiction over spousal support subsequent to receiving a lump sum payment by her former spouse, James W.P. Smith. Ms. Smith argues the trial court abused its discretion in terminating spousal support jurisdiction. We affirm the order.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suspended Shong-Ching Tong’s (appellant) driver’s license after discovering that appellant was unable to operate a motor vehicle safely because of a lapse of consciousness or control. Approximately 30 days later, after an administrative hearing, the DMV ended (as opposed to vacated) the suspension. Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate, asking the trial court to vacate or otherwise set aside his driver’s license suspension. The trial court denied appellant’s petition, and appellant initiated this appeal.
We affirm.

Valeria A. (Mother) and Chandler C. (Father), parents of A.C., born in November 2010, appeal the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court. Father contends the finding of jurisdiction was not supported by substantial evidence. Both Father and Mother contend the court’s decision to remove A.C. from her parents’ custody was not supported. We affirm.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, pursuant to which appellant owes money to respondent. Appellant’s theory is that it acquired a third party’s right to indemnity from respondent for the very payments appellant is obligated to make to respondent. This theory is untenable. We affirm.

Francisco Valdez Esparza appeals a judgment following conviction of conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit kidnapping for purposes of robbery, conspiracy to possess heroin for sale, conspiracy to possess methamphetamine for sale, kidnapping, and assault with a firearm, with findings that a principal discharged a firearm and that the crimes were committed to benefit a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a), 209, subd. (b)(1);[1] Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11378; §§ 207, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(2), 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (e), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) We modify the judgment to strike the criminal street gang enhancements for count 1 and impose a minimum 15-year parole date as to that count; reduce the conviction for count 2 to conspiracy to commit simple kidnapping and remand for resentencing; modify the conviction for count 6 to attempted kidnapping; reverse and remand for resentencing regarding the gang enhancements for counts 3 and 4 and the modified conviction for count 6; and otherwise affirm.

On July 13, 2011, a jury found Adrian Lugo (appellant) guilty of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).[1] Prior to the jury trial, appellant pled no contest to one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)).[2] Appellant was sentenced to the midterm of four years on the burglary conviction and to a concurrent term of two years on the receiving stolen property conviction.

Defendant and appellant Jungfeng Han and his wife, defendant and appellant Shumin Zhang, operated the Hong Yei Restaurant where plaintiffs and respondents Jia Nong Guo and Jiam Hui Han were employed. In 2009, plaintiffs sued defendants and Hon Yei Group, Inc., doing business as Hong Yei Restaurant (the corporation) for various Labor Code violations including nonpayment of overtime wages and failure to provide meal and rest breaks.[1] Although plaintiffs initially filed separate actions, they were deemed to be related actions and were consolidated.

Plaintiffs Timothy Glenn (Glenn) and his wife, Dana Glenn,[1] appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants Radiant Services Corporation (Radiant) and BK Real Estate Associates (BK). The case arose out of injuries Glenn sustained while working in a facility operated by Radiant in a building owned by BK. Glenn contends the trial court erred in ruling that Radiant and BK were not liable for his injuries as a matter of law. We agree with the trial court’s determination that under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette) and Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659 (Kinsman) Radiant and BK are not liable for Glenn’s injuries, and therefore we affirm.

Plaintiffs, Martin Suman, as trustee of the Suman Family Trust Under Trust Dated June 2, 1992 and Gilad Suman, appeal from an order granting a special motion to strike. The special motion to strike was filed by defendant, Paul Tashnizi. We affirm.

Appellant George Mario Reyes challenges his conviction for second degree murder. He contends the trial court improperly declined to instruct the jury regarding lesser included and lesser related offenses to murder. We reject these contentions and affirm.

In this appeal, Wendy R. and Michael C., mother and father of Lily (six years old) and Michael (five years old) challenge the court’s order after the six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e))[1] that the parents complete a drug rehabilitation program, and the court’s finding that the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) provided the parents reasonable reunification services. We affirm.