CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Jonathan Scott Elderton pleaded guilty to corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b)) in exchange for a promise that he be initially granted probation. Defendant was placed on probation for four years under various terms and conditions.
Defendant was cohabiting with the female adult victim and their four-month-old child. Defendant was upset and pushed the child, causing the child to fall and hit its head on the side of the crib. Defendant punched the adult female, causing a large bruise on her cheek bone.

The California Supreme Court directed us to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Catlin v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 300 (Catlin). We now vacate our prior decision and reconsider the matter, as directed by the Supreme Court. Upon reconsideration we conclude that Catlin does not alter the analysis upon which our prior decision was based.[1] Accordingly, we deny the petition.
Penal Code section 1054.9 allows a convicted defendant who has been sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole to obtain discovery materials â€

Esmaeilian pled no contest to one count of identity theft for his unauthorized use of Nancy and Chris Ricks' credit cards. Under a plea agreement, Esmaeilian received the midterm sentence of two years and the remaining counts against him for identity theft, unlawful possession of an access card and forgery were dismissed. At a subsequent restitution hearing, the prosecutor presented the court with a letter from the Ricks stating that they did not incur any direct cost out-of-pocket because the losses from Esmaeilian's unauthorized purchases were covered by insurance. However, the Ricks did purchase credit security services for $544.80 to ensure there has not been any other identity theft and to prevent future identity theft. The trial court found the amount reasonable and ordered Esmaeilian to pay $544.80 in victim restitution. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the restitution ordered was not authorized by state law. On appeal, the People concur.
Penal Code section 1202.4, which governs the restitution ordered in this case, requires that a victim of crime be compensated for any economic loss he or she has suffered. It does not authorize payment for costs incurred to prevent future crimes, except in circumstances involving victims of violent crimes who incurred â€

Stephanie D. (Mother) appeals from the September 22, 2010 jurisdiction and disposition orders of the juvenile court adjudging minors M.W., D.M., Levi M., and Faith M. dependents of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect).[1] Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's jurisdictional findings.[2] We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the court's jurisdictional findings and affirm the orders of the court.

Harriett Harvey filed a complaint against LaSalle Bank National Association (LaSalle) for wrongful foreclosure. The trial court sustained LaSalle's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint. We affirm.

Mountaingate Associates, LLC (Mountaingate) appeals from an order granting new trial to SBD Enterprises, Inc.'s (SBD) following summary judgment in Mountaingate's favor. We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment, and erred when it ordered a new trial. We reverse.

Juan C., appeals from the dependency court's orders asserting jurisdiction over his 14-month-old daughter, Jade C., and denying him custody over the child. Appellant contends the court lacked substantial evidence (1) to sustain the petition brought on the minor's behalf by respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, subdivision (b) (willful or negligent failure to protect) as to appellant; and (2) to make its dispositional orders removing the child from appellant's custody and setting a case plan for appellant. We disagree and therefore affirm the court's orders.

Appellant Adrienne Spratt appeals from a judgment of conviction following trial. The jury found appellant guilty of possession for sale of cocaine base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her pretrial motion to suppress evidence. We agree, as this case presents a nonconsensual encounter and unlawful detention. We therefore reverse the judgment.

Miar Kaptali Gainer appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of robbery. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appellant's counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We affirm.

Kevin Yang sued appellant Phihong Technology Co., Ltd., for breach of oral contract for failing to deliver 90,000 shares of appellant's stock, allegedly promised to him to encourage him to stay in appellant's employment. After a court trial, the judge issued a statement of decision finding no oral contract existed between the parties, but concluded that appellant nevertheless owed Yang 30,000 shares as a stock bonus. We affirm.

Zachary Emerson Flanders appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of the first degree felony murder of Ronson Edgerly (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189),[1] the attempted murder of Matthew Staley (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), and two counts of robbery. (§ 211.) The jury found true the special circumstances allegation that appellant had committed the murder while engaged in the commission of robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(7).) The jury also found true firearm allegations on all counts. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), & (d).) For the attempted murder and robberies with the firearm enhancements, the court sentenced appellant to prison for a determinate term of 29 years, 4 months. For the murder, the court sentenced him to prison for an indeterminate term of life without the possibility of parole plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.
Appellant contends that, except for one robbery conviction (the robbery of Aaron Englert), the evidence is insufficient to support the jury verdicts. Appellant further contends that the trial court erroneously admitted a photograph of the murder victim while alive and misinstructed the jury. Finally, appellant contends that (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct, (2) his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment, and (3) he was denied his right to presentence custody credits. We modify the judgment to award appellant credit for actual time served in presentence custody. We affirm the judgment as modified.

A jury found Nicolas R. Pasea guilty of two counts of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211)[1] and two counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)). On this appeal, Pasea challenges his sentence, and the People concede error. We affirm Pasea's convictions, modify his sentence, and remand the case to the trial court to prepare a new abstract of judgment.

Micah Johnell Parker was convicted by jury of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2) - count 1),[1] false imprisonment by violence (§ 236 - count 2), assault with intent to commit a felony (§ 220, subd. (a) - count 3), criminal threats (§ 422 - count 4) and sexual battery by restraint (§ 243.4, subd. (a) - count 5).
The trial court imposed an aggregate term of 12 years 4 months in state prison, consisting of the mid-term of 6 years as to count 1; 8 months (one-third the mid-term) as to count 2; the mid-term of 4 years as to count 3; 8 months (one-third the mid-term) as to count 4; and one year (one-third the mid-term) as to count 5. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences on counts 1 and 3 and that it erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1190, providing that the testimony of a complaining witness can support a conviction for a sexual assault crime. We affirm.

Appellant Paul Zapisek appeals from the May 14, 2010 order extending his involuntary commitment to September 10, 2011 pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b) (further references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated). Appellant's appointed counsel has not identified any appellate issues and asks this court to conduct a review of the record and disposition of the case in accordance with the procedures outlined in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.).