CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Susie Tsang (Tsang) filed an action against defendant and respondent John E. Willardsen, who is a doctor of dental surgery (Dr. Willardsen), arising out of alleged negligent performance of “dental treatment, implant surgery and related dental care, which caused her to suffer permanent damage to her teeth, gums, mouth and nervous system.” Dr. Willardsen moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Tsang appeals, contending the trial court erred in granting the motion since there were triable issues of fact as to Dr. Willardsen’s negligence.

Plaintiff and appellant Sharlene Trexler, as successor in interest to Connie Gates, appeals from the trial court’s order granting the motion of defendants and respondents Roberta Lynn Webb, Kivett Realtors, Inc. (Kivett), Garey Donald Teeters, and Peter Tripp for new trial in Trexler’s action for elder financial abuse. Trexler contends the trial court abused its discretion because its statement of decision was not based on evidence at trial and was inconsistent with California law. We conclude that although the trial court erred in basing its decision as to economic damages, and in part, its decision as to punitive damages, on matters not in evidence, “‘a verdict for an amount considerably less than that awarded [by the jury] would have had reasonable and substantial support in the evidence’” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 379 (Horsford), and we must therefore affirm the order.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea, minor R.P. admitted he committed an assault on Travis S., and admitted the accompanying gang enhancement. (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 186.22, subd. (b)(1).)[1] The juvenile court dismissed a great bodily injury allegation which had accompanied the admitted offense, as well as two additional allegations of assaults on separate victims, with the agreement the dismissed allegations could be considered at disposition. The juvenile court committed the minor to the Division of Juvenile Justice (now the Division of Juvenile Facilities) for a maximum period of confinement of five years and awarded 154 days of precommitment credit.
On appeal, the minor contends the matter must be remanded for the juvenile court to specify whether his offense was a felony or misdemeanor. The minor also contends the juvenile court failed to award him all of the precommitment credits to which he is entitled. We disagree with both contentions and affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Jeffrey Campbell of second degree murder and found true the allegation that he used a deadly weapon in committing the offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).)[1] In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that defendant was in violation of probation in a prior case involving a conviction for petty theft with a prior conviction.
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of 16 years to life (one year for the deadly weapon enhancement and 15 years to life for murder).[2] The court awarded 666 actual days of presentence custody credit. The court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $10,000 suspended restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $263.85 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), and a $28.75 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2). The court also awarded victim restitution in the amount of $7,504.63.
According to the evidence at trial, defendant, a drug addict, fatally stabbed Frederick Howard, his dealer, in the early morning hours of May 19, 2009. The prosecution claimed that defendant killed Howard to avoid paying a $100 debt and to steal Howard’s money and drugs. Defendant testified that he killed Howard in self-defense after wresting away the knife Howard pulled on him.

Defendant Michael Andreas Shares entered a plea of no contest to unlawful possession of cocaine for sale, transportation of cocaine, unlawful possession of MDMA, and transportation of MDMA.[1] (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11352, subd. (a), 11377, subd. (a), 11379, subd. (a).) Sentenced to three years in prison, defendant appeals.
Defendant contends there is no evidence to support a finding of his ability to pay a $63.85 jail booking fee and a $28.75 jail classification fee imposed at sentencing. He also notes that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to accurately reflect the booking fee imposed.
We conclude that defendant forfeited his challenge to the booking and classification fees by failing to object in the trial court. Accordingly, we shall order a correction to the abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm.

Defendant Leslie Allen Bond, Jr., punched Adam Sigler to the ground, rendering him unconscious. Defendant then got on top of Sigler and punched him some more, causing Sigler’s head to “bounce[] back and forth, kind of like a ping-pong ball.” Sigler died. A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder and assault with means likely to produce great bodily injury.
Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment, contending the People presented insufficient evidence of the implied malice component of second degree murder, and the court abused its discretion in overruling a defense objection to the People’s cross-examination of a defense witness. Disagreeing with these contentions, we affirm.

Defendant Hebhert Yamil Gomez-Hernandez appeals from a March 2010 order of the Sacramento County Superior Court denying his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground he received a defective advisement of the immigration consequences of his no contest plea.[1] (Pen. Code, § 1016.5.)[2] The court denied the motion because, when defendant entered his plea, he did not “plead[] to the sheet” and instead received “the benefit of a significant bargain . . . .”
The record shows that defendant did plead “to the sheet,” and it fails to show that he received some other “significant bargain.” Because the trial court’s other reasons for denying the motion also fail, we reverse.

A jury convicted defendant Ulis Morris of one count of robbery. The trial court sentenced him to three years in state prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction.
The evidence at trial showed that on July 17, 2010, Amy Langley-Larson (Larson) went bar hopping with a female friend in Hollywood. Later, at a pizza parlor, her cell phone was taken from her table. Defendant and two other people (a Hispanic man and a blonde woman) offered to help her get it back. After calling her cell phone, they led Larson to the Gilbert Motel to obtain her phone. While there, the blonde girl said that Larson could come up to their room to get her phone. Larson refused, and started walking away. Defendant and the other two walked with her to the corner, and then defendant grabbed Larson’s purse. Larson struggled, but was knocked to the ground. Defendant fled with the purse.

Gary R. (Father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ and challenges an order of the juvenile court terminating family reunification services and setting a permanent plan hearing regarding his four minor children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c).)[1] We summarily deny his petition for extraordinary writ.

Dawn B. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, Ava B., under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26.[2] She contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the parent-child relationship exception set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) (hereafter, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply, and therefore the court erred in terminating her parental rights. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Defendant and appellant Robert Vincent Ramirez (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered upon his violation of probation. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On February 23, 2012, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues affirm the judgment.

Jeremy Jasen Hale appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to four felony counts of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) and his admission that he had a prior serious felony conviction in 2002 (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), (c)(1), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (a)(1)).[1] The trial court found he fell within the purview of the three strikes law and sentenced him to an aggregate nine-year prison term. We conclude Hale has not shown that the court erred by imposing a nine-year term or by not striking his prior 2002 felony conviction. We affirm.

Richard B. Lewis (husband) appeals from the trial court's order awarding temporary spousal and child support to Mary Lewis (wife). We affirm.

Appellant Ismael Norris was convicted of first degree burglary. His court-appointed counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues. Following our independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we conclude that no arguable issues exist, and affirm.