CA Unpub Decisions

The juvenile dependency court entered jurisdictional and dispositional orders in a dependency proceeding concerning father, mother, and teenage son. Here, mother challenges one of the court's multiple jurisdictional findings, alleging it lacks substantial evidence. We agree that the one jurisdictional finding should be reversed. The dependency court's remaining jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders are affirmed, and the case may proceed on the basis of those remaining findings and orders.

Appellant T.W. was declared a ward of the juvenile court and ordered placed home on probation after the court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging he had committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and grand theft (id., § 487, subd. (a)). On appeal, appellant contends the sustained allegation of grand theft must be reversed because it is a necessarily included offense of robbery. He also contends that he is entitled to an additional four days of credit. We agree that the sustained allegation of grand theft must be reversed and appellant is entitled to two additional days of credit.

Tarek Bourgi appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent entered by the superior court after a bench trial.[1] The parties previously were before this court in Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1649 (Bourgi I). Stated succinctly, after learning that a Hummer vehicle he had purchased as new had sustained prior damage in an eco-terrorist attack on the respondent's dealership, appellant sued alleging numerous causes of action, claiming respondent's employees had represented the vehicle was original or new when it in fact was not. In Bourgi I, we reversed a judgment for appellant following a jury trial, and we remanded the matter to the trial court for retrial. Upon remand and reassignment to another department, respondent prevailed leading to this appeal.
In the present appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in finding (1) respondent adequately repaired the Hummer so that disclosure was not required under Vehicle Code section 9992;[2] (2) under code provisions, respondent made no misrepresentation; (3) there was no violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.; CLRA); and (4) appellant was not entitled to rescission. We disagree with appellant and affirm.

Defendant Rong Sheng, Inc., doing business as Win All E-Z Inn, appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs Lu Rong Li, Yong Qin Li and Xiao Guang Li. We affirm.

Appellants Angel Rivera and Jose Chavez were convicted by a jury of the murder of Travion Johnson and the attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder of Michael Abrams; they were also found guilty of two firearm enhancements. The jury found that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Both appellants were sentenced to a total term of 85 years. We affirm.

Appellant Darcy McCarthy (Darcy)[1] appeals from the order after stipulation filed on December 23, 2009, after a hearing that occurred on October 15, 2009. At that hearing, the parties reached a settlement that was placed on the record. Darcy contends that the proposed order should have been sent to Judge Louis Meisinger, the judicial officer who heard the proceedings on October 15, 2009. Darcy further contends that Judge Marjorie Steinberg, who signed the order, did not consider Darcy's objections to the order and that the order was inconsistent with the transcript of the proceedings. We disagree and affirm the order.

Appellant Mr. S. Liquor Marts, Inc. (Mr. S.) appeals from a judgment and award of attorney fees in favor of respondent JNJ Investments, LLC (JNJ). Mr. S. contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to issue a statement of decision, (2) granting JNJ's motion for judgment on all causes of action, and (3) awarding attorney fees to JNJ. We disagree and affirm.

Appellant Mr. S. Liquor Marts, Inc. (Mr. S.) appeals from a judgment and award of attorney fees in favor of respondent JNJ Investments, LLC (JNJ). Mr. S. contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to issue a statement of decision, (2) granting JNJ's motion for judgment on all causes of action, and (3) awarding attorney fees to JNJ. We disagree and affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Donald Bernard Williams of assault with a deadly weapon and of possession of firearms and ammunition while being a felon. On appeal, defendant contends that the judgment should be reversed because, first, his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed timely to object to a statement obtained in violation of Miranda;[1] second, the trial court failed to instruct the jury that mere access is insufficient to prove possession of a firearm; third, there was insufficient evidence to show he assaulted the victim; fourth, Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a), is unconstitutionally vague; fifth, his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to object to imposition of the upper term; and, finally, he is entitled to additional custody credits. We agree that defendant is entitled to additional presentence custody credits, but we otherwise affirm the judgment.

We affirm appellant Martin Osuna's conviction for selling a controlled substance and offering to sell a controlled substance. Osuna filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and after review of the entire record, we find no arguable issue.
We also affirm appellant Rafael Perez's conviction for offering to sell a controlled substance. We find no merit to Perez's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence or the trial court's instruction regarding flight from the scene. We agree with Perez that his conduct credits should be amended and modify the judgment accordingly.

Defendants Larry Darnell Taylor and Lindsey Conrad Richards appeal from the judgments entered following a jury trial in which they were convicted of violating Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), by selling, furnishing, or giving away cocaine base. Richards contends the court erred by failing to modify CALCRIM No. 301 to state that his exculpatory testimony did not have to be supported by corroborating testimony and by instructing the jury that he and Taylor were accomplices as a matter of law. We agree and reverse Richards's conviction. Taylor's appointed attorney filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently. Taylor then filed six supplemental briefs raising numerous contentions that we find meritless. We affirm Taylor's conviction.

Following a jury trial at which he represented himself, Terrance Meeks was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (ADW), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (AGBI), attempted second degree robbery, and misdemeanor possession of burglar's tools. In a bifurcated trial phase, the trial court found that Meeks had two prior convictions for which he had served terms in prison. The court thereafter sentenced Meeks to an aggregate term of seven years and two months in state prison. We reverse Meeks' AGBI conviction. We further find it was improper to impose a consecutive eight-month term on his conviction for attempted robbery. All remaining aspects of the jury's verdicts and the trial court's sentence are affirmed; the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to prepare a new abstract of judgment in accord with this opinion.

A modification decision.

James Amelia Kennedy (decedent) died intestate on May 3, 2008, survived by his wife, Darlene E. Kennedy (respondent), two adult daughters, Terri Lea Perry (appellant) and Cindy Kennedy, and an adult grandson, Anthony Minor. Respondent wife petitioned to establish her title to the stock of A & J Electric Service, Inc. (A&J), a small electrical contracting business decedent operated before he died. Appellant daughter Terri Lea Perry objected to the petition, seeking to retain the business as an asset of decedent's estate.
After a trial of the matter, the court found that respondent had â€