CA Unpub Decisions

Richard Lough appeals the trial court’s judgment in his action against his mother Vinetta Lough and his brother Rodger Lough for fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, indemnity, and an accounting. On appeal, he contends the court erred in numerous respects in adopting the findings of a court-appointed referee determining issues relating to the parties’ extensive real estate holdings, compensation due Rodger, and the extent of equalizing payments due Richard. We affirm the judgment as modified to provide that postjudgment interest runs from the date of entry of judgment.

A jury returned a verdict finding Oliver Matthews guilty of the crime of transporting a controlled substance, cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) Upon a court trial of prior conviction allegations, the court found that Matthews had suffered a prior strike, six prior felony convictions with a prison term, and prior drug-related convictions. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 667.5, subd. (b); Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2.) The court sentenced Matthews to an aggregate term of 16 years in state prison. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals his conviction of one count of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), with true findings he suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (a)-(i); § 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). On appeal, he contends that insufficient evidence supports his conviction for burglary and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an unlawful search. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Lawrence Jones of the first degree murder of Shantell Martinez and the attempted premeditated murders of Jaythia Muhammad, Laniece Dalcour, and Adrian Wade. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664/187, subd. (a).)[1] In each count, the jury found true allegations that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that a principal intentionally discharged a handgun causing death (§ 12022.53 subds. (d) and (e)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 125 years to life in state prison. He appeals from the judgment of conviction. We affirm.

Appellant Troy Joseph Gatlin pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. (Former Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a) [Stats. 2008, ch. 292, § 3].) He was sentenced to two years eight months in state prison. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his suppression motion and (2) awarding him insufficient presentence conduct credits. We affirm the judgment, including the award of sentencing credits.

Appellant J.E., a minor, appeals from a dispositional order after finding that he came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Appellant’s sole claim on appeal is a challenge to the juvenile court’s probation conditions relating to prohibitions against gang associations, displays, and activities. He claims they must be set aside because the conditions are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.

Julio Castrillo (Julio) and his attorney, Thomas V. Roland (Roland) (collectively, appellants) , appeal from an order of final distribution (Order) relating to the Estate of Josephine T. Castrillo (the Estate). Appellants contend that in issuing the Order, the probate court failed to include payment to Roland for his legal representation of Julio in connection with his mother’s estate. They claim there was no support in the record for the court’s finding that there was no assignment providing for payment of attorney fees and costs to Roland out of Julio’s distributive share in the estate.
We agree, and vacate that portion of the Order granting Julio a distribution from the estate, with directions that the probate court reconsider the matter of Roland’s assignment for attorney fees, before ordering such distribution. In all other respects, we affirm the Order.

Defendant challenges an order authorizing involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to him. We conclude that the prosecution adequately proved defendant is a danger to others without medication, and affirm the judgment.

Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (SEIU) appeals from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of a grievance filed on behalf of one of its members. SEIU contends it did not waive its right to arbitrate because it timely served an arbitration demand on the employer, even though SEIU did nothing to pursue the arbitration during the next 19 months, while the member pursued the employer in litigation. We will affirm the order.

Michael David Lowder appeals from a judgment imposed following revocation of probation in two cases. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he violated probation.

Julio H. appeals from orders declaring him a ward of the juvenile court and placing him on probation in the home of his parents after his admission of a count of unlawful intercourse with a minor. He challenges the court’s dispositional order as an abuse of discretion and denial of due process in that it was based on unsupported and inaccurate understanding of the facts. He further argues that the court abused its discretion in setting his offense as a felony and in imposing certain conditions of probation, and that the minute order from the June 6, 2011 hearing must be corrected to properly reflect the court’s oral pronouncements. Appellant’s fundamental claim is that the juvenile court improperly viewed him as a sexual predator rather than a normal teenage boy.
We will modify the conditions of probation in certain respects and affirm.

Defendant Merhawi Y. Mehari, driving a stolen car, led police on a chase through Walnut Creek before crashing into a fence. A jury convicted him of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle and evading an officer. (Veh. Code, §§ 10851, 2800.1.) He was sentenced to prison for eight years, with presentence credit of 199 days.
Prior to trial, defendant asked for a translator. The trial court denied the request. On appeal, defendant argues that reversal is required because the trial court erroneously denied his request for the assistance of an interpreter without making an adequate inquiry. He also argues he is entitled to additional conduct credits under the current version of Penal Code section 4019[1] as a matter of equal protection. We affirm the judgment, because the record does not affirmatively demonstrate defendant needed an interpreter, and a rational basis supports the prospective application of section 4019 for awarding credits.

After several hearings, the juvenile court issued an order on March 4, 2011, terminating its dependency jurisdiction over A.F. based on a petition filed by the San Francisco Human Services Agency (agency). A.F. seeks reversal of the order on the grounds of abuse of discretion and insufficient evidence, and the agency’s failure to provide him with information to which he is entitled pursuant to section 391 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1] We conclude the court properly terminated its dependency jurisdiction over A.F. However, we conditionally reverse the order, and remand the matter so that the court may ensure that A.F. receives the information to which he is entitled pursuant to section 391.

Matthew Mitchell appeals from an April 6, 2011, domestic violence protective order restraining him from committing certain acts against his ex-wife Shannon Mitchell.[1] He challenges the order on various grounds. We affirm.