CA Unpub Decisions

Kevin Coe appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to two counts of false imprisonment of a hostage (Pen. Code, § 210.5),[1] and one count of misdemeanor assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and his admissions that in 1987 he had been convicted of four serious or violent felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)), that in 1987, 1996, 2000 and 2004 he served prison terms for separate felony offenses and, pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), committed a felony or did not remain free of prison custody for a period of five years subsequent to the conclusion of the prior term, and had been convicted of five felonies which, pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), precluded the granting of probation. As part of a plea agreement, the trial court struck Coe’s admissions to the Three Strikes allegations, then sentenced him to 12 years in prison. We affirm.

Nia N. appeals, challenging a restitution order entered after the juvenile court placed her on probation for six months without wardship. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725, subd. (a)).[1] Nia contends there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution order. After requesting supplemental briefing on the timeliness of the appeal, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Tony Thomas appeals from the judgments entered following his plea of no contest to second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459); his admissions that he had previously been convicted of three felonies in case No. BA382542; and that he had suffered imposition of a 16-month sentence for a violation of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666) to which he had previously pled guilty in case No. BA381214. In total, the trial court sentenced Thomas to nine years four months in prison. We affirm.

Hardy Miller III appeals from the judgment entered following his pleas of no contest to two counts of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and his admission that, during the second count, he had been released from custody on bail or his own recognizance (Pen. Code, § 12022.1). The trial court sentenced Miller to 7 years, 4 months in prison, suspended imposition of sentence and placed Miller on probation for a period of three years. After a contested hearing, it was determined that Miller had violated the terms of his probation, probation was revoked and the 7 year, 4 month sentence was placed in full force and effect. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Randolph David Martinez of petty theft with prior theft convictions (Pen. Code, § 666)[1] (count 2).[2] Defendant admitted having suffered two prior convictions for purposes of count 2 and serving custodial time for both offenses. He admitted having suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and having suffered eight prior convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
After denying defendant’s Romero motion,[3] the trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison. The sentence consisted of the high term of three years, doubled to six years because of the strike, plus one year pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court exercised its discretion and struck the remaining enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Defendant appeals on the grounds that: (1) reversal is required because the prosecutor argued facts outside the record; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that reasonable doubt was a lesser standard of proof; and (3) defendant suffered cumulative prejudice.

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging that siblings Joseph V., age 16, and Emily G., age 10, fell within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d) and (j). The petition alleged that the children’s father had sexually abused their half-sister and that such conduct placed the children at substantial risk of sexual abuse. The petition also alleged that the children’s mother, who lived in North Carolina, had failed to protect the children because she permitted them to reside with their father in California. At the jurisdictional hearing, DCFS recommended that the juvenile court sustain the allegations pertaining to father and dismiss the allegations pertaining to mother. The court, however, sustained the allegations against both parents, declared the children to be dependents of the court and ordered them removed from the parents’ residences.
Father, mother and Joseph each appeal the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. We reverse the portion of the court’s orders pertaining to Joseph and affirm the portion of the orders pertaining to Emily.

Appellants Robert and Charles Parker appeal from a judgment entered on January 26, 2011, in favor of respondents Sean Rooks, Robert Berry, Steve Smolinski, Robert LaSota, Martha Medrano, Salvador Medrano, and Carlos Medrano. We affirm the judgment.

Miguel Angel Bustamante appeals from the judgment upon his conviction on three counts of making criminal threats pursuant to Penal Code section 422. Appellant asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence under Evidence Code section 1109. Appellant’s claims lack merit, and accordingly, we affirm.

Defendants and appellants Aaron and Julie Sones share a property line with their neighbors, plaintiffs and respondents Stanley and Lucetta Kallis. The Soneses cut down a tree growing on the property line, and the Kallises sued. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded a total of over $100,000 in damages to the Kallises.
The Soneses now appeal, contending that the trial court improperly failed to reduce damages to account for the fact that only a portion of the tree’s trunk was located on the Kallises’ side of the property line. We find that the trial court did not err by declining to reduce damages. In fashioning its award, the court could and did appropriately consider the tree’s unique characteristics and the great personal value it had to plaintiffs. We also find that the trial court properly doubled the amount of assessed damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3346, subdivision (a), which applies in cases of injury to trees. Accordingly, we affirm.

This is an appeal from post-judgment orders regarding child support. We affirm.

Eleonora Igova was convicted of second degree murder with firearm use allegations also found true. The trial court sentenced her to a term of 40 years to life in state prison. She appeals, claiming multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, including improper comment on her failure to testify in violation of Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 (Griffin). We agree with Igova that she has identified a number of instances of serious overreaching by the prosecutor, and we emphasize our disapproval of such questionable behavior. Nevertheless, having reviewed the record in its entirety, while we disapprove of the prosecutor’s questionable behavior, we find the evidence of Igova’s guilt so overwhelming that we must also conclude she could not have been prejudiced as a result. Accordingly, we affirm.

Appellant Mihajlo Bujko, a former physical education teacher at a North Hollywood high school, contended that in 2005, he observed respondent Angela Hewlett-Bloch, then an assistant principal, enter the boy’s locker room while male students were dressing for a football game. He reported this incident and was thereafter allegedly subjected to acts of retaliation and harassment by Hewlett-Bloch and other members of the school’s administration, including a negative performance evaluation, disciplinary conferences called to correct misbehavior and inadequate performance, and a threatened transfer to a new school. Appellant reported these actions to the LAUSD’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), claiming to be the subject of whistleblower retaliation. While OIG’s investigation was pending, OIG’s hotline received an anonymous call making serious charges against appellant, including that he had posted pictures of nude underage girls on the internet. Appellant contended that these charges -- which allegedly were made by respondent Randall Delling, the principal of the high school -- and OIG’s manner of investigating them furthered his discomfiture and distress, leading to his constructive discharge.

Appellant Christina Reuser (Reuser), in pro. per., appeals from the entry of a civil harassment injunction issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6,[1] ordering her to stay away from and limiting her conduct with respondents Thomas P. Kelly, Jr. (Kelly), his son, Thomas P. Kelly, III (Kelly III), and Kelly’s legal secretary, Julie Humphreys (Humphreys) (collectively, protected persons). As near as we can discern from her briefs, she contends on appeal that: (1) we should reevaluate the credibility of Kelly and his witnesses, and hold them criminally liable for perjury, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the issuance of the injunction on several grounds, each of which we address below.
We conclude that appellant’s contentions lack merit, and therefore, we affirm.

At a hearing on August 9, 2010, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) issued a three-year denial of parole for Manolo Abundo Tolentino, and he now petitions for writ of habeas corpus to overturn that decision. We issued an order to show cause and, having now considered the matter fully, deny the relief sought.