CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Troy Theosius Sherman, Jr., of first degree robbery and grand theft of a firearm. In addition to ordering defendant to pay restitution to the robbery victim, who was stabbed during the crime, the trial court also ordered defendant to pay restitution of $454.95 to Medicare and $319.95 to Medi-Cal for emergency medical services rendered to the stabbing victim, plus a 10 percent collection fee on all restitution amounts.[1]

This case arises out of the development of a new real estate subdivision for which a common area recreation facility, a clubhouse, was planned. When the clubhouse was not built, appellant Gold Strike Heights Homeowners Association (Gold Strike)[1] sued the developer, defendant Westwind Development, Inc. (Westwind), and defendant Financial Pacific Insurance Company (Financial Pacific), the surety company that issued a bond for the building of the clubhouse. A jury awarded $319,157 to Gold Strike, which appeared to be based on the construction estimate attached to the bond. However, the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on grounds that Gold Strike failed to introduce any evidence of what it would actually cost to build the clubhouse. The trial court also ordered Gold Strike to pay attorney fees in the reduced amount of $15,000 to Westwind and $5,000 to Financial Pacific.

Plaintiff Ana Sanudo was injured after she tripped and fell on a sidewalk in Long Beach. She failed to present a timely notice of claim to the appropriate government entity as required by the Tort Claims Act (TCA; Gov. Code, § 905, et seq.). The County of Los Angeles (County) and City of Long Beach (City) denied Sanudo’s applications for leave to present a late claim. The trial court subsequently denied Sanudo’s petition for relief. We affirm the trial court order.

A modification decision.

Defendant Andrew David Stiefel appeals the execution of a suspended sentence following his exclusion from the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a brief. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) We have conducted the review requested by appellate counsel and, finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

The propriety of a $50 fine is the sole issue in this appeal. Defendant and appellant M.M. was charged with battery and stalking, both misdemeanors. The juvenile court sustained the petition on both counts, ordered her placed in a court-approved home or institution, and ordered her to pay a $50 restitution fine. M.M. acknowledges a fine was mandatory under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 730.6, but claims the court abused its discretion in setting that amount. She also admits her attorney made no objection to the fine, but claims that constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Lastly, M.M. asserts section 730.6 violated her equal protection rights because it mandates a fine, albeit with no minimum, for juvenile misdemeanor offenses, while the fine may be waived for juvenile felonies and, similarly under Penal Code section 1202.4, for adult misdemeanor and felony offenses. We affirm.

Following a contested interim review hearing, the juvenile court awarded sole physical and legal custody of minors Aaron L. and A.L. to mother D.M.— a deviation from the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) that D.M. and father Ronald L. share legal custody. Ronald appeals, contending he had inadequate notice that the court was considering awarding D.M. sole legal custody. He further argues that, notice issues aside, the court’s decision regarding legal custody constituted an abuse of discretion. We conclude that neither argument has merit, and we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Deaundre Andrew Anderson of several offenses, including being a felon in possession of a firearm and active participation in a criminal street gang. Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction for gang participation because he committed the underlying offense on which the conviction is based alone, without the involvement of another gang member. We reject the contention and shall affirm the judgment.

The People petition for a writ of mandate directing the Santa Clara County Superior Court to vacate its order suppressing methamphetamine found in a search of defendant Jesus Alberto Palacios's van after he was arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550). We requested preliminary opposition to the petition, but real party in interest (Palacios) declined our invitation to submit any. Accordingly, we issued an order to show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue as requested in the petition for writ of mandate.
Again, Palacios declined to file a return in opposition to the writ. Accordingly, after reviewing the petition, including the record of the suppression hearing, we grant the petition for writ of mandate and direct the superior court to vacate its order of August 30, 2011, suppressing the methamphetamine found in Palacios's van and to enter a new and different order denying Palacios's motion to suppress evidence.

Mother J.V. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights over Jose L. and Maribel L. She contends no substantial evidence showed the children were adoptable. But the record contains sufficient evidence of adoptability, including the prospective adoptive parents’ willingness to adopt. We affirm.

Plaintiffs RE3W, Inc., and RE3W Worldwide Limited, Inc., appeal from an order imposing discovery sanctions against them. The court found no substantial justification for their motion to compel production of financial data and customer information from a nonparty competitor, respondent CoStar Group, Inc. (CoStar). We see no abuse of discretion, and affirm.

In case No. VC220545, appellant, Karl Terrell Todd-Baltimore, pled no contest to carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm (former Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1)).[1] In case No. VCF239699, Todd-Baltimore pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter (count 1/§ 192, subd. (a)) and unlawful firearm activity (count 3/former § 12021, subd. (c)(1)) and admitted a personal use of a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in count 1. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm.

On July 18, 2011, appellant, Jesus Torres, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis with the trial court. Appellant’s writ was based on his contention that when he was convicted of a drug offense in 1998, he was not notified that his conviction could later be used to increase his sentence for a future federal offense. Appellant was subsequently arrested for a federal offense, pled guilty in that action, and his state court conviction was allegedly used to triple his sentence in the federal case. Appellant asserted to the trial court that his trial counsel in the state court action failed to inform him at any time that a consequence of his guilty plea could result in the enhancement of penalties in future criminal actions.
On July 21, 2011, the trial court held that appellant’s writ of error coram nobis failed to raise a cognizable claim because it was based on an assertion of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court denied the writ. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

The juvenile court sustained a juvenile wardship petition for appellant, Daniel N., finding he committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). Following a dispositional hearing, Daniel was committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice for a period of 10 years 8 months. Daniel contends the jurisdictional finding of robbery was not supported by substantial evidence. We will affirm.
FACTS
On the afternoon of February 10, 2011, the victim approached Daniel, wanting to buy an ounce of marijuana. The victim showed him some cash. Daniel did not have the amount of marijuana the victim wanted, so he contacted two acquaintances to see if they could come up with the marijuana together. Daniel told Officer Jarod Hughes that when they came up with the amount, his two acquaintances wanted to do the deal “around the corner.”