CA Unpub Decisions

Jeffrey Orr appeals orders of the family law court denying his motion to modify child custody and visitation, and declaring him to be a vexatious litigant. (Fam. Code, §§ 3022, 3088; Code Civ. Proc., § 391 et seq.)

Wesley B. appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders in the dependency proceedings concerning his son Edward W., called Chance. We affirm.

In 2007 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) detained Felix Wu’s teenage daughters, Tiffany and Chelsea, after receiving school referrals alleging Wu had physically and emotionally abused the girls. The juvenile court sustained the petition filed by the Department under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), and the court’s jurisdictional and disposition orders were affirmed on appeal.[1] Wu then sued the County of Los Angeles and social workers Ronald Darlington, Rosa Tang and Latoya Anthony (the County defendants), alleging tort and civil rights claims. Judgment was entered against Wu after the trial court granted the County defendants’ motion for nonsuit. We affirm.

Raul Gonzales Torres appeals following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)[1] (count 1) and second degree commercial burglary (§ 459) (count 2). Appellant admitted having served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b) in case No. 06NF1288 with a conviction date of August 11, 2006. Appellant admitted a prior conviction in case No. VA057006 for a violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(2) with a conviction date of May 8, 2011.
The trial court found that the conviction in case No. VA057006 was for a serious or violent felony under the three strikes law. (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) After denying appellant’s Romero[2] motion, the trial court sentenced appellant to a total sentence of 10 years. The sentence consisted of the low term of two years for the robbery, doubled to four years under the three strikes law. The trial court imposed a consecutive five years for appellant’s prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and a consecutive one-year term for appellant’s prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Defendant and appellant Raymond Tate (defendant) appeals from his conviction of criminal threats and felony vandalism. After his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues, we notified defendant on February 9, 2012, 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. Defendant filed a letter summarizing his version of the events leading to his arrest and conviction.

Darrell L. Moore appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing the action after Moore failed to demonstrate he had served the named defendants with the amended complaint. We affirm.

In a paternity proceeding brought by Anna Y. against Philip T. (respondent), the trial court denied a motion for attorneys fees brought by Anna’s former counsel, the Law Offices of Jeffrey Steinberger (appellant).[1] We reverse the order denying the motion and remand the matter for a hearing to determine the amount of fees due to appellant.

Ara Karamanoukian appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion for summary adjudication in favor of Victoria Akopyan in this action for breach of contract and declaratory relief. 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.

William Theadore Gleason was convicted following a jury trial of making a criminal threat and misdemeanor battery on a cohabitant. On appeal Gleason contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reduce the felony conviction for making a criminal threat to a misdemeanor, failed to state reasons for denying probation and sentenced him in violation of Penal Code section 654.[1] We affirm.[2]

Benigno Velasquez Arceo appeals a judgment entered following our remand for resentencing. (People v. Arceo (May 17, 2010, B213721) [nonpub. opn.].) We order the trial court to: 1) amend the abstract of judgment to reflect an additional 781 days of actual custody credit, and 2) correct the sentencing minute order to delete the word "base" in the phrase "determinate base term." We otherwise affirm.

Ronald Simpson appeals a judgment following conviction of second degree robbery, with findings that he suffered a prior serious felony strike conviction and served six prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).)[1] We affirm.

This case involves a dispute between a commercial tenant and landlord. At the end of two years of litigation and trial, a jury rendered a special verdict in favor of the landlord. The tenant claimed the landlord breached the parties’ amended lease. The landlord claimed the lease amendment was forged. The tenant now appeals from the judgment, challenging the trial court’s pretrial discovery rulings, orders sustaining a demurrer and motion for summary adjudication, a motion in limine ruling and related evidentiary rulings, and the court’s order awarding attorney fees. We affirm the judgment.

Daniel Sherlock and Jason Blaylock purchased and remodeled a home in the hills overlooking the San Fernando Valley and then resold it to Brian Sullivan. After moving in, Sullivan discovered what he contended were serious, previously undisclosed problems with the residence and sued Sherlock and Blaylock for intentional and negligent misrepresentation and concealment. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding the sellers had not misrepresented or concealed any important fact. On appeal from the judgment entered after the jury’s verdict, Sullivan argues the trial court erred in denying a special jury instruction on a seller’s statutory duty of disclosure and committed prejudicial error with several evidentiary rulings. We affirm.