CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Anthony Dorado appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated no contest plea to several offenses. Appellant contends he is entitled to withdraw his plea because he was inadequately admonished regarding the effect of his waiver and did not properly waive his constitutional rights. We dismiss the appeal for appellant’s failure to secure a certificate of probable cause.

Plaintiff Jose Castaneda filed this appeal after the trial court granted his former attorney’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this legal malpractice action. We affirm.

Hazel B. Sims appeals from a judgment in an action brought on behalf of her husband Arthur James Sims by Andrea Sims-James, the conservator of Arthur’s estate.[1] (The action originally was brought by Arthur’s brother, Dillard Sims; after Dillard died, Arthur’s daughter Andrea was appointed temporary successor conservator.) The probate court found that Hazel breached her fiduciary duty and exercised undue influence over Arthur, who had been diagnosed with dementia, by having Arthur sign a quitclaim deed transferring to her his interest in the real property (their residence) they owned as joint tenants. The court ruled that (1) the transfer of the property, which was community property, severed the joint tenancy and that Hazel and Arthur became tenants in common; (2) for his interest as tenant in common, Arthur was entitled to half of the proceeds Hazel received when she subsequently sold the property; and (3) Arthur was also entitled to half of Hazel’s interest as damages for her breach of fiduciary duty under Family Code section 1101, subdivision (g). The court also ordered Hazel to pay Andrea’s attorney fees for her prosecution of the action, as well as all or some of the attorney fees incurred by Enright Premier Wealth Advisors, Inc. (Enright), TD Ameritrade, Inc. (Ameritrade), and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab), who were named as defendants in the action.[2]
We conclude the award of half of Hazel’s interest in the sale proceeds is not authorized by law. Therefore, we strike that portion of the damages award. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment as so modified.

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging K.D. committed two counts of misdemeanor resisting arrest in violation of Penal Code Section 69. She was placed on probation. She appeals from the dispositional order of the juvenile court that imposed a probation condition requiring her to submit to warrantless searches and seizures. K.D. argues that the condition is overbroad given the circumstances of her offense. We disagree, and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

Michael Edward Jansen appeals from an order revoking his probation and executing his state prison sentence. He contends the court erred by imposing a second restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and by imposing and staying a parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45) higher than the original restitution fine. We will order the trial court to amend its sentencing order and abstract of judgment as set forth in this opinion.

A modification decision.

Humberto D. Nieto was placed on probation after pleading guilty to the possession of marijuana for sale. He appeals from the ensuing revocation of his probation based on findings he violated its terms and conditions by possessing marijuana and pepper spray. We affirm the revocation order.

A jury convicted defendant Andrew Anthony Lynch of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,[1] § 245, subd. (a)(2)) (a lesser included offense of attempted murder with which he was charged), shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246), and active participation in a street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury also found to be true several gang and firearm allegations, including the allegation that defendant’s intentional discharge of a firearm at a motor vehicle caused great bodily injury. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).)
Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for shooting at an occupied vehicle because defendant fired the handgun while standing at the door of a parked vehicle with the gun extended inside the vehicle. He also contends the victim’s gunshot wounds do not constitute great bodily injury. We reject both contentions and shall affirm the judgment.

Ben Burton pled guilty to false imprisonment and admitted a strike prior conviction. The court sentenced him to prison and ordered him to pay restitution to the victim. On appeal, he contends the court erred in refusing his request for a restitution hearing distinct from the sentencing hearing. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

In March 2011, police took then 13-year-old Lorenzo G. into custody for felony vandalism after he admitted defacing City of Palmdale and Palmdale School District property with graffiti on various occasions in 2010 and 2011. In May 2011, the People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against Lorenzo, alleging six counts of felony vandalism.[1] (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a).)

Ritnesh Prasad Sharma appeals from the denial of a motion to set aside a negotiated plea of no contest to first degree burglary on the ground he was not properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea. We affirm the trial court’s post-judgment order denying the motion.

Jason Daniel Barrios appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of attempted rape (Pen. Code, §§ 664/261, subd. (a)(2))[1] and assault with the intent to commit a felony (§ 220, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced Barrios to four years in prison. We affirm.

Jaime Bermeo Martinez appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, Stephanie (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)),[1] and committing a forcible lewd act upon a child, Yessenia (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)), and the finding that he committed the acts against multiple victims (§ 667.61, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Martinez to 30 years to life in prison. We affirm.

Margie Clark (appellant) appeals from the trial court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order prohibiting her from coming within 100 yards of respondent Yolanda Clark’s residence, car, and place of employment. We affirm.