CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Alexa Ada-Saucedo brought this action for breach of contract, sexual harassment, and related claims arising out of her employment at Pragmatic Communications Systems, Inc. (Pragmatic). After a court trial at which she represented herself, judgment was entered in defendants' favor. Plaintiff appeals, contending that she was prejudiced by the court's errors in denying her request to postpone the trial, excluding critical evidence, rushing her during trial, and favoring defendants by helping them with their testimony. Because plaintiff has not established a legal basis for overturning the trial court's verdict, we must affirm the judgment.

A.C. (Father) seeks extraordinary writ relief from an order terminating reunification services as to his now four‑year‑old son, A.P., and setting a selection and implementation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,[1] which is scheduled for January 2, 2014. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450.) Father contends (1) his due process rights were violated because the juvenile court failed to find by clear and convincing evidence that vesting Father with custody of A.P. would create a substantial risk of detriment to A.P.’s well‑being; (2) insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s detriment finding; (3) he was denied reasonable reunification services; and (4) the juvenile court improperly delegated its authority regarding visitation to the social worker.
For the reasons we will explain, we find no error in the juvenile court’s order. We therefore deny the petition for a writ of mandate.

In this juvenile court proceeding, appellant was placed on probation for committing burglary and possessing a controlled substance without a prescription. He contends the court erred in denying his request for deferred entry of judgment and failing to apply Penal Code section 654 in calculating his maximum period of confinement. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

The trial court did not err in denying the motion to vacate, and we affirm. There was no error in service on Daybreak of the pretrial notices pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 286 and 594, and Daybreak failed to establish diligence in bringing the motion to vacate. Diligence is required for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).
Statement of Facts and Procedural History

Mac Beam, Inc. (Mac Beam) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Cadovimex USA GJ Trade Corp. (Cadovimex) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 644.6.[1] The trial court determined Mac Beam breached the terms of its
2012 settlement agreement with Cadovimex, and granted its motion for entry of judgment against Mac Beam in the amount of $140,000. On appeal, Mac Beam raises five issues challenging the court’s ruling, and we have determined one has merit, rendering the rest moot. We conclude the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to section 664.6. The judgment is reversed.

The court found that appellant, Stephan D., was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] after it sustained allegations charging him with sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (e)(1)). On appeal, appellant challenges the juvenile court’s failure to place him on non-wardship probation pursuant to section 725, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 725(a)) and he contends that one of his conditions of probation is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We find that the challenged probation condition does not meet certain statutory requirements and modify it so it does. As modified, we affirm the judgment.

Heather L. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] as to her seven-year-old son, Jonathan, two-year-old son, Braden, and one-year-old daughter, Nicole. Heather contends the juvenile court erred in declining to apply the exceptions to adoption contained in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) and (v), hereafter referred to as the “beneficial relationship” and “sibling relationship” exceptions respectively. Neil S. joins in Heather’s argument as to his children, Braden and Nicole. We affirm.

Appellant, Joshua S., admitted allegations in two separate petitions charging him with second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459; 460, subd. (b)),[1] resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)) and was committed to the Tulare County Youth Facility for 365 days after he violated a grant of probation. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appellant, Daniel Francisco Gaytan, pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code,[1] § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we determined that the trial court did not impose a mandatory parole revocation restitution fine. We will modify the judgment to include this fine and affirm the judgment as modified.

In case Nos. F10902492, F11906319, F11906340, and F11906778 appellant, Julio Ortiz, pled guilty to various charges, admitted two enhancements and was sentenced to an aggregate eight-year prison term. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we discovered that the trial court erred in its award of presentence custody credit and by its failure to order restitution to the victim of Ortiz’s assault offense. We will correct these errors, modify the judgment accordingly, and affirm the judgment as modified.

Defendant Jesus Benavidez Nuñez appeals following his convictions for involuntary manslaughter with personal use of a firearm, child endangerment, and possession of a firearm by a felon. He contends the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 3404 regarding the defense of accident. We will affirm.

Defendant Dewayne Keith Parker pled no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter and corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant and admitted having served prior prison terms. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in not holding a competency hearing when there was substantial evidence giving rise to a reasonable doubt regarding defendant’s competence and (2) the trial court erred in calculating defendant’s conduct credits. We will order the abstract of judgment corrected and affirm the judgment as modified.

Defendant Gurmukh Singh (defendant) was charged with one count of gross negligence vehicular manslaughter. (Pen. Code[1] § 192, subd. (c)(1).) Defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to four years in state prison. He now appeals, contending that expert testimony was improperly admitted at trial, the prosecutor committed error under Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 (Griffin), and the sentencing court abused its discretion in denying probation. We affirm.

On November 10, 2011, a jury convicted defendant Darren Lee Trice of transporting a controlled substance, namely cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 1), possessing a controlled substance, namely cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count 2), being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code § 11550, subd. (a); count 4), and possessing drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code § 11364; count 5). In a bifurcated trial, the court found true the special allegations that defendant suffered six prison priors and five prior strike convictions. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(a), 667.5, subd. (b), and 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A).) On May 25, 2012, the court sentenced defendant to six years plus 25 years to life as follows: 25 years to life for counts 1 and 2, one year for count 4, and six months for count 5. Counts 2, 4 and 5 were ordered to run concurrent with count one. With respect to the Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior conviction allegations, the trial court imposed a consecutive sentence of six years. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying both his motion to suppress evidence and his request to strike prior convictions. He further raises challenges to his sentence. As discussed below, we affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to conform with Penal Code section 654.