CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Brian Keith McNutt of two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)),[1] receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), misdemeanor resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A)). After defendant waived his right to a jury trial on three prior conviction allegations and one prison prior allegation (§§ 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b)), the court found those allegations true. The court sentenced defendant to 15 years and eight months in prison.
On appeal, defendant claims he was incurably prejudiced when the jury learned, by volunteered testimony that was immediately stricken by the court, “that [he] had a criminal record, preferred to be in jail, and had multiple drug addictions.” Defendant contends that the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a hearing on whether the state and federal double jeopardy clauses bar his retrial. We affirm.[2]

The juvenile court did not err when it did not offer reunification services to the father nor when it placed the minors with the mother. We affirm.

Defendant William Phillip Armentrout, Jr., appeals from his conviction for four counts of grand theft, four counts of forgery, and four counts of false personation. Over a period of 18 months, defendant received and cashed 19 pension checks from the Veterans’ Benefits Administration (VA) intended for his deceased father. He was charged with one count of forgery, one count of grand theft and one count of false personation for each check, resulting in four convictions.
Defendant maintains on appeal that he should not have been convicted of four separate offenses, because he acted with one intent and one purpose in cashing the checks. He also asserts the trial court erred in suspending, rather than striking, a third one-year sentence enhancement.

A modification decision.

Minor A.C. appeals an order entered at the dispositional hearing in her juvenile dependency case. A.C. contends the court erred by ordering her placed with her mother, A.N.C. We affirm.

A modification decision.

Six percipient witnesses testified consistently to all or part of the narrative the prosecution argued to the jury -- that two inebriated gang members robbed a man on a bike in the middle of the night in a dark alley, kicked him in the head and ribs as he lay on the ground, jumped in their truck and rolled over him several times, moved forward then stopped and looked under the truck, accelerated down the street with the man stuck in the tire well, turned the corner, parked the truck, and took off running. Following a joint trial, a jury convicted defendants Aaron Richard Ouellette and Michael Angelo Sanudo of first degree murder, robbery, active participation in a criminal street gang, and assault, and found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed during a robbery.
Ouellette testified he did not rob the decedent, Willie Dean Roberts, Jr., did not intend to hurt him, and did not know that he had run over him or dragged him under the truck for approximately 730 feet. Sanudo did not testify, but his lawyer argued he committed no crime; rather, he was unfortunately at the wrong place at the wrong time. On appeal, both defendants attempt to retry their case, casting aspersions on the credibility of the percipient witnesses and insisting that the killing was an accident unrelated to any gang activity. They raise a host of meritless challenges to the jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Arthur J. Brewster appeals from two judgments of dismissal following orders granting the demurrers of defendants Mary Blackshear, her attorney Linda Rose Fessler, and The Law Offices of Linda Rose Fessler in this action to set aside a judgment.[1] Brewster contends: 1) the hearing date for Blackshear’s demurrer was untimely; and 2) the doctrine of res judicata does not apply because the complaint alleged extrinsic fraud. We conclude Brewster has failed to show the hearing date was untimely and the allegations of the complaint do not allege extrinsic fraud, and therefore, we affirm.

Gawker Media, LLC, and Gawker Sales, LLC (collectively, Gawker) published an article in a technology weblog questioning claims made by Scott Redmond, the chief executive officer (CEO) of a small startup technology company, about the company’s products and his past business successes. Redmond sued Gawker and the article’s writers, John Herrman and Adrian Covert, for libel and false light. Defendants moved successfully for an order striking the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (hereafter section 425.16). Redmond contends the trial court erred in finding he had not established a probability of prevailing on his libel claims. Based on our independent review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order.

The issues on this appeal concern an insurance policy on the life of respondent, Andrew Wong, and the proceeds paid on that policy after he died during the course of the parties’ divorce proceedings. Appellant, Nancy Wong, had been the named beneficiary during the parties’ marriage and for some time after their separation, until respondent changed the beneficiary designation to the parties’ children. Appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to determine that the life insurance policy was a community property asset to be divided between the parties, and abused its discretion in denying her request to be reinstated as a beneficiary of the policy. We affirm.

Petitioner and respondent Joaquin Valencia’s parents purchased a house in San Jose. When they retired, Valencia’s parents moved back to Mexico and told Valencia that the house was his if he took over the mortgage payments and paid the property taxes and insurance premiums. Valencia moved into the house in 1994 and paid the mortgages, taxes, and insurance for approximately 17 years. The house, which had been a rental for a number of years, was in disrepair and Valencia made numerous improvements to the property. Valencia’s mother passed away in December 2006. In 2007, Valencia’s father married objector and appellant Dora Celia Alvarez Gomez in Mexico. Valencia’s father passed away in April 2008 and Gomez was named the sole heir and executor of his estate in Mexico. Gomez appointed Jose Anguiano to serve as her personal representative in the United States. Anguiano filed a probate action on Gomez’s behalf, identifying the house that Valencia lived in as the sole asset of the estate. In June 2010, Valencia filed a petition pursuant to Probate Code section 850[1] to determine title to the property and to require Anguiano to transfer the property to him, on resulting trust and constructive trust theories. Gomez filed a written objection and then a demurrer based on the statute of limitations. After the court overruled Gomez’s demurrer, the case proceeded to trial. The court granted Valencia’s petition, concluded that a constructive trust was the appropriate remedy,[2] and ordered Anguiano to transfer the property to Valencia. Gomez appeals.

Although Penal Code section 471 broadly and unambiguously makes it a crime to forge an entry in “any book of records,” the trial court construed the statute as applying only to the forgery of public records. Therefore, it dismissed 24 felony counts that were filed against defendant for allegedly falsifying entries into the records of a private business. We agree with the People that the statute encompasses defendant’s alleged conduct, and therefore we reverse the order dismissing those counts.

After a combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found half-siblings A.N. and L.N. dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect child from substantial risk of harm), (g) (child left without provision for support), and (j) (sibling abuse). (All further statutory references are to this code.) By clear and convincing evidence the court also found that to vest custody of either child with P.N., their mother, and to vest custody of A.N. with T.N., her father, would be detrimental and placed both children in the custody of the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA).
Applying section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11), the court ruled mother need not be provided with reunification services to either child and set a permanency planning hearing for L.N. (§ 366.26.) Mother challenged this ruling by a writ petition that was denied in a prior opinion. (P.N. v. Superior Court (Feb. 22, 2012, G046184) [nonpub. opn.].) Father was granted reunification services as to A.N.
Both parents appeal the judgment concerning A.N. Father contends the evidence fails to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional rulings. He also claims the court erred in failing to find him to be L.N.’s presumed father. Mother asserts the juvenile court erred in not placing A.N. in father’s custody. Finding no error, we affirm.

ABC MoneyTransactions, Inc. (ABC), obtained a default judgment against Truc Ly Ha. ABC located money belonging to Ha in the client trust account of attorney Frank Barilla; Barilla had represented Tom Vu in a separate action against Ha, in which Ha was the prevailing party. The trial court granted ABC’s motion for an order authorizing a levy on Barilla’s client trust account, and Barilla appeals.
We affirm. The motion for the levy order was properly and timely filed and served. ABC established its right to the money in Barilla’s client trust account to satisfy its own judgment against Ha. Barilla’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing.