CA Unpub Decisions

Marvin D. appeals from the juvenile court’s order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him in a camp-community program after the court sustained a petition alleging he had possessed a concealed dirk or dagger in violation of former Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(4).[1] Marvin contends there was insufficient evidence he knew he possessed a dirk or dagger capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon. We modify the disposition order to strike the requirement that Marvin submit a DNA sample and otherwise affirm.

E.G. appeals from two juvenile court’s orders denying two petitions for modification he filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,[1] seeking to be declared presumed father of three-year old G.A. We consolidated the appeals and affirm the two orders.

Plaintiff Gamze Cakarcan appeals the judgment entered in favor of defendant Law Offices of Steven Stoler and Associates. The trial court ruled that plaintiff's second amended complaint for legal malpractice was time-barred, and sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant, Enrique Silva Santoyo, appeals the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to cultivating marijuana and theft of services over $950 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358; Pen. Code, § 498, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 16 months.
The judgment is affirmed.

Steven Horn appeals from the judgment, contending the trial court erred in confirming an arbitration award and awarding attorney fees. Horn primarily contends the arbitrator failed to disclose necessary information which would cause a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator’s neutrality. We affirm the judgment.

John Rini was convicted of commercial burglary and grand theft. On appeal, Rini argues—and the government concedes—that his conviction for grand theft should be reduced to petty theft because a 2010 amendment of the grand theft statute increased the minimum value of the stolen property from $400 to $950. (Pen. Code, § 487.) We agree that the amendment operates retroactively. Because the evidence does not show that appellant stole $950 worth of property, we reduce appellant’s conviction on count 2 to petty theft. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant, Shaun Marvel Allen, appeals the judgment entered following his conviction for residential burglary, with prior serious felony conviction findings (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667, subd. (a)-(i)).[1] He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 35 years to life.
The judgment is affirmed.

Armen Mangasaryan and Arpiar Terrgalstanyan appeal from the judgments entered following their convictions by a jury of the murder of Hasmik Voskanyan. Both defendants challenge the admission of cell phone records linking them to the location of the murder, as well as recordings of various telephone conversations and police interviews, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. Terrgalstanyan also contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of guns found in the trunk of his car and in failing to give the jury an accomplice instruction. We affirm.

A jury convicted Christopher Bernard Yancy of murder and found true a special allegation he had used a deadly or dangerous weapon. On appeal Yancy contends the court erred in denying his request for a mistrial after the jury was told Yancy’s codefendant had been convicted and was serving a life sentence. Yancy also argues the court’s instruction to the jury on aiding and abetting in accordance with former CALCRIM No. 400 was prejudicial error. We affirm.

Following a lengthy joint jury trial, Bryan Sanchez, Jasmin Rossier and two other codefendants were found guilty of the murder of Juan Monsivais and the attempted premeditated murder of Manuel De La Rosa in a gang-related drive-by shooting on September 6, 2003. On direct appeal this court affirmed those convictions. (See People v. Flores (July 19, 2010, B211207) [nonpub].)[1]

A jury found defendant guilty of the sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), and giving false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)). The jury found him not guilty of possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). On appeal, defendant challenges his conviction for giving false information to a police officer. He claims that his extrajudicial statements were the only evidence in support of his conviction and the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on corpus delicti. We conclude that the corpus delicti rule does not apply and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Eva Ferreira, who filed this suit as an individual and as executor of her late husband’s estate, appeals from a final judgment for defendants Homeport Insurance Company, Stevedore Services of America and SSA Marine. Ferreira sought damages on account of an unpaid workers’ compensation settlement agreement that was pending but not yet approved at the time of her husband’s death. The case was tried to the court, and Ferreira seeks review of two pre-trial orders that limited her causes of action. One order sustained without leave to amend the defendants’ demurrer to her causes of action for breach of contract, for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for declaratory relief. The other order granted defendants summary adjudication on Ferreira’s causes of action for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants cross-appeal from a judgment entered in favor of Ferreira following trial on their cross-complaint for promissory estoppel. The cross-complaint sought the satisfaction by Mr. Ferreira’s estate of a lien in favor of Homeport on any recovery in actions against third parties for his work-related injuries.

Defendant Gary Joseph Dean appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) - count one) and evading an officer with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.2 - count two). Defendant also admitted that he had suffered a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 666.5, subdivision (a) as alleged in count one. He was sentenced to four years and eight months in state prison and filed a timely notice of appeal.

Defendant Thomas Wayne Allen, Jr., was sentenced to prison on September 1, 2011. He now contends he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), which became operative on October 1, 2011.[1] We affirm.