CA Unpub Decisions

Manuchehr Riazati accumulated at his residence more than 90 animals, which the County of San Diego Department of Animal Services (Department) ultimately seized pursuant to a search warrant after animal control officers made multiple unsuccessful attempts to persuade Riazati to rectify code violations concerning the living conditions of the animals. A jury convicted Riazati of two counts of felony animal neglect (rabbits & dogs) and four counts of misdemeanor animal neglect (chicken, birds, guinea pigs & duck) in violation of Penal Code[1] section 597, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 597(b)). The court suspended imposition of sentence for five years, granted formal probation to Riazati, and ordered him to pay $42,263 in restitution and fines.

Appellant, mother of minors J.F., F.F., A.F., and F.M., appeals from the juvenile court's orders terminating her parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) She contends the juvenile court erred in concluding the beneficial relationship exception to termination of her parental rights did not apply. We affirm the orders.

This appeal centers on the actions of shareholders and directors in a small incorporated printing business, Digital Direct, Inc. (DDI). In response to a lawsuit seeking to collect payment of a promissory note, appellant Mitchell B. Sayegh cross-complained against three other shareholders and directors of DDI (respondents Steven Spiller, David Scinto, and Kenneth Meyers) alleging their breach of fiduciary duties. Sayegh appeals the portion of the judgment denying him any relief, claiming (1) the trial court applied the incorrect standard of proof, and (2) the evidence shows a breach of fiduciary duties. We shall affirm the judgment.

John David Cobos appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to one count of second degree burglary of a vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 459.) Appellant claims that he thought he was pleading to a misdemeanor and challenges his sentence. However, appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and therefore cannot challenge his sentence, which was part of the negotiated plea agreement. (See Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 678 [â€

Defendant and appellant Jesus Alvarez was convicted by jury of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211.[1] Defendant admitted suffering a prior conviction under sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a)-(d) and 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) (the three strikes law) and section 667, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in state prison.
After defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On February10, 2010, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no appellate issues and requested this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Defendant was advised by letter from this court, dated February 15, 2011, of his right to file a supplemental brief or letter within 30 days. On April 15, 2011, defendant filed a one page letter arguing the victim did not provide any evidence as to what was taken from him. This court authorized late filing of the letter.

Rolando Anthony Garcia was convicted by jury of carjacking, with a finding that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 215, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b).)[1] The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of 13 years in state prison, consisting of the low term of 3 years for the carjacking, plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement. He contends he was intoxicated, thus lacked the requisite intent to commit a carjacking. We affirm.

Bryan Kenner challenges the legality of his jail sentence following his conviction for assault, spousal battery, and 23 counts of contempt of court. The contempt charges arose from Kenner's violation of a court order forbidding contact with the victim. Kenner contends that the contempt convictions were part of the same continuous course of conduct and should be stayed. (Pen. Code, § 654.)[1] We agree that the contempt offenses were committed in pursuit of one objective: dissuading the victim from coming to court and testifying truthfully against him. We therefore modify the judgment to stay the sentences for counts 6 to 27.

Appellant San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper challenges the trial court's award of attorneys fees under the private attorney general statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.) The court found that appellant was the prevailing party in a case brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), and that the fees were reasonable. Nevertheless, it awarded only a percentage of the fees requested because appellant did not prevail on all its claims. We affirm.

Appellant Hristos Moca appeals from orders denying motions made in a family law case. Respondent is his former wife, Linda J. Moca. We find no merit in the appeal, and affirm the orders.

This appeal arises from a lawsuit brought about by the actions of a private investigator, Anthony Pellicano. Robert S. Rein, sued Pellicano, the lawyers who hired him, and Pacific Bell Telephone Company (PacBell). Rein alleges the defendants recorded confidential telephone conversations he had with the former wife of Kirk Kerkorian about a child support matter. Here, we deal only with PacBell, which filed a demurrer arguing that Rein's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court sustained PacBell's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed Rein's action against PacBell. Rein appeals and we affirm.

Jesus Ruelas appeals from a judgment of eight years and eight months in state prison for manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine for sale. On appeal, Ruelas contends his convictions should be reversed because (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, (2) the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the basis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and (3) the court erred in not awarding him additional presentence custody credits under Penal Code section 4019.[1] Finding no prejudicial error, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendants and appellants Jeremy Michael Vindiola and Wilson Omar Alfaro of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)[1].) The jury found true the allegations that defendants personally used and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing death. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), & (d).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegations that Vindiola suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the â€

Defendant, Framel Lawayne Bolton, appeals after a jury convicted him of first degree murder and found a gang allegation to be true. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 186.22.) Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted certain evidence in connection with the gang allegation. We affirm.

Appellants Roberto Spencer, Uriel Hernandez and Kevin Hernandez were tried together for robbery, assault and vandalism. Roberto and Uriel were tried by the same jury; Kevin was tried by a separate jury.
Kevin was convicted of one count of robbery in violation of Penal Code[1]
section 211 (Avila), two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (Avila and Saravia) and two counts of vandalism in violation of section 594, subdivision (b). The jury found true the allegations that Kevin personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the robbery within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) and that he committed the vandalism for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22. The jury could not reach a verdict on a second robbery count (Cerna) or on the gang allegations associated with the assaults. After trial, Kevin pled no contest to the second robbery count and admitted the gang allegation associated with the robbery charge. The trial court sentenced Kevin to a total term of 12 years, 8 months in state prison.
Roberto was convicted of one count of robbery (Cerna), one count of simple assault as a lesser included offense of the charged aggravated assault (Avila) and two counts of vandalism. The jury found true the allegations that Roberto personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the crimes within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) and that he committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22. The jury acquitted Roberto of a second robbery count (Avila) and a second assault count (Saravia). The trial court sentenced Roberto to a total term of 13 years in state prison.