CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant Thomas Wesley Bertram guilty of using personal identifying information of another to obtain credit, goods or services in another’s name. (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a).)[1] Sentenced to three years in state prison, defendant appeals. He contends the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and committed Griffin[2] error in her rebuttal closing argument.
We reject defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Bryanna Nadine Warren appeals following a conviction of attempted murder of Lawanda Shoals (Pen. Code, § 664/187)[1] and assault with a firearm on Clifford Brown (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) with a great bodily injury enhancement as to Shoals (§ 12022.7) and gun use enhancements as to both victims (§ 12022.53, subd. (d) (Shoals); § 12022.5, subd. (a)(1) (Brown)). This case stems from a dispute between defendant and Shoals, culminating when defendant forcibly entered the apartment where Shoals and Brown resided, shot Shoals in both legs and shot at Brown, grazing his buttocks. The defense at trial was that defendant believed she had access to the apartment at Brown’s invitation and that she acted in self-defense when Shoals aggressively approached her inside the apartment.

Following a jury trial, defendant David Azua was convicted of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)--count one), and possession of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)--count two), and defendant Daniella Lopez was convicted of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)--count one), possession of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)--count two), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)--count three), and residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459--count four). As to defendant Lopez, the jury found true the allegation that she was a principal armed with a firearm during the commission of counts one through three. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant Azua admitted a strike allegation and was sentenced to four years in state prison. Defendant Lopez was sentenced to four years four months in state prison.
On appeal, defendant Azua contends the trial court failed to determine his ability to pay the cost of the probation report, and his counsel was ineffective because he did not raise the issue with the trial court. Defendant Lopez contends on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the armed with a firearm enhancement, the trial court failed to determine her ability to pay the cost of the probation report, and there is an error in the abstract of judgment.
We order a correction to defendant Lopez’s abstract of judgment and affirm.

Julio Armando Beltran appeals from an April 24, 2013 order denying his post-judgment motion for additional presentence conduct credits pursuant to Penal Code sections 2900.5 and 4019.[1]
On December 4, 2007, appellant was convicted by jury of attempted murder with findings that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and caused great bodily injury. (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)); 12022.53, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced appellant to 32 years to life state prison and awarded presentence credits of 448 days actual custody and 67 days conduct credit. Appellant appealed and we affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion on March 13, 2009. (B204402.)
In 2013, appellant filed a post-judgment motion for additional presentence custody credits. The trial court denied the motion on April 24, 2013 and appellant appeals.

On or about May 27, 1997, Ferone Lawrence Tweedy robbed a 7-Eleven at knifepoint after a dispute with the cashier over the correct change. On June 26, 1997, Tweedy was charged with one count of felony robbery under Penal Code section 211.[1] After a trial, the jury found Tweedy guilty of second degree robbery, and found true the special allegation that he used a weapon. (§§ 211; 12022, subd. (b)(1).) On May 5, 1998, he was sentenced under the “Three Strikes” law to 26 years to life. Tweedy had two prior strikes from convictions for assault and robbery in 1983.

The minor, Victor R., appeals from an order declaring him to be a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, upon findings that he had assaulted victim Jesus V. in violation of Penal Code section 241, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor. The juvenile court continued Victor R. as a ward of the court, placed him under the care and supervision of the probation department and ordered that he be suitably placed for a period not to exceed one year and five months. Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence that he committed the assault.
We affirm.

Appellants Mark Tognazzini and Bonnie Tognazzini, owners of Dockside Restaurant, Inc., Tognazzini's Dockside Too, Inc., and Tognazzini Family, Inc., appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss a class action complaint for Labor Code wage and hour violations, unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200), and civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698). Appellants contend that the arbitration provision in its Dispute Resolution Policy agreement invalidates all class action claims. The trial court concluded that the arbitration provision was vague and unconscionable, and that any implied waiver of the PAGA claim violates public policy. We affirm.

Mia A. (Mother) is the biological mother of Ayden S., born in March 2011, who has been a dependent of the juvenile court since October 7, 2011. Mother seeks writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452, 8.456), from the juvenile court's order terminating her reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) [1] She contends that the San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (the Department) did not provide her with reasonable reunification services and that the order terminating services is not supported by substantial evidence. We deny the writ.

In this appeal, a father claims the dependency court’s jurisdictional order is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree and therefore reverse.

Barnard Enterprises, Inc. (appellant) appeals from an order awarding American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.[1] and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (respondents) $87,959.50 in attorney fees as the prevailing parties under Civil Code[2] section 1717 on a complaint for breach of a 2010 real estate purchase agreement. Appellant claims the trial court erred in failing to apply releases executed in connection with a 2012 real estate purchase agreement of the same property. We affirm the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees.

R.W. (father) and M.W. (mother) appeal from the order adjudicating their sons, J.W. and C.W., dependent children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (j).[1] Both parents contend the jurisdictional findings were not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

B.E., the father of L.E., a dependent child (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)),[1] appeals orders of the Ventura County Juvenile Court which grant the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) supervision over his custody and visitation of L.E. We conclude, among other things, that: 1) a Court of Appeal decision, which reversed a jurisdictional finding that B.E. engaged in "inappropriate sexual boundaries" with L.E., did not terminate the juvenile court's jurisdiction to place limits on B.E.'s custody and visitation rights based on the child's best interests; and 2) substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's orders. We affirm.

This appeal presents two issues: whether summary judgment for defendants County of Los Angeles and Detective Michael Berbiar (county defendants) was proper based on plaintiff Chad Padilla’s failure to comply with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), and whether the trial court properly granted terminating sanctions based on plaintiff’s presentation of false declarations to the court, resulting in dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against all defendants. Defendants City of West Hollywood and Bonnie Smith (West Hollywood defendants) also ask us to impose sanctions against plaintiff payable to the clerk of this court for taking a frivolous appeal.
We affirm the judgment, but decline to consider the imposition of sanctions against plaintiff.

A modification decision.