CA Unpub Decisions

Carlos Ramirez Munos appeals an order denying his motion to vacate his felony conviction for transportation or sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), after pleading no contest to that offense in 1995. Court conclude, among other things, that 1) the trial court properly denied his motion to vacate; and 2) before entering his no contest plea, the court adequately advised Munos about the adverse immigration consequences of a conviction. Court affirm.

Plaintiffs Susan Ryvkin and her children, Alisha and Zachary, sued defendant Terry York Motor Cars, Ltd. dba Land Rover of Encino for the wrongful death of Leon Ryvkin, their husband and father. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and an irregularity in the proceedings, to wit: defendant's failure to provide certain materials in response to plaintiffs' discovery requests. The trial court determined that the purported newly discovered evidence which flowed from the belatedly produced documents would not have altered the verdict, and denied the motion. Court conclude that plaintiffs failed to establish the statutory requisites to their entitlement to a new trial, and so affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Terry McGee (defendant) of two counts of first degree burglary (counts 1 & 3; Pen. Code, 459)[1] and one count of attempted first degree burglary (count 2; 664, 459). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that defendant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction under the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and a prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (a), and that defendant had served a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced defendant to 18 years in state prison.

Dirul Larue Robinson (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of count 1, making criminal threats against Tonny Agbara (Agbara) in violation of Penal Code section 422.[1] The jury found defendant not guilty of count 2, assault with a firearm against Agbara ( 245, subd. (a)(2)); count 4, making criminal threats against Chinyere Nekes (Nekes) in violation of section 422; and count 5, possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). Codefendant Kekere Yuri Garner (Garner) was also charged in counts 1, 2, and 4. The jury acquitted Garner of all counts. The jury found not true the allegation that defendant and Garner personally used a handgun within the meaning of sections 12022.5, 1192.7, subdivision (c), and 667.5, subdivision (c). The jury found not true the allegation with respect to counts 1 and 4 that defendant and Garner personally used a handgun within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a). The also jury found not true the allegation with respect to counts 1, 2, and 4, that a principal was armed with a handgun within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1).

Appellant, Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company (Surety) appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate forfeiture and to exonerate bail after the failure of criminal defendant Vardan Vardanyan (Vardanyan) to appear in court. Surety also appeals from the summary judgment entered on the forfeiture.

Defendants, cross-complainants and appellants MTS Products (MTS) and Ben Hsia (Hsia)[1] appeal from a postjudgment order granting a motion by plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent Pou Chen Corporation (Pou Chen) to offset an outstanding $12.8 million judgment against Pou Chen obtained by the MTS defendants (the MTS judgment) with approximately $24.1 million of an outstanding and unpaid judgment against the MTS defendants that Pou Chen acquired by assignment from GBM International, Inc. (GBMI) and BHE Group Inc. (BHE). The MTS defendants contend the trial court erred by granting the motion to offset because three existing contractual liens on the MTS judgment should have been given equitable priority over the BHE/GBMI judgment. Court affirm the trial courts order.

Lucio Alberto Gamez appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of spousal rape (Pen. Code,[1] 262, subd. (a)(1)), false imprisonment by violence ( 236), two counts of making criminal threats ( 422), corporal injury to a spouse ( 273.5, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), cruelty to a child by endangering health ( 273a, subd. (b)), and intimidating a witness ( 137, subd. (b)).
The jury found true the allegation that one count of making criminal threats was committed with the use of a deadly weapon ( 12022 , subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to a total of 12 years in state prison. He contends the court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony on Battered Women's Syndrome. He also claims the court violated his due process rights by admitting evidence of his prior acts of violence against the victim under Evidence Code sections 1109 and 352. Court affirm.

This appeal is taken by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or Department) and the five children of Raul R. -- Giselle R., Destiny R., Jazmin R., Karen R., and Kevin R. Appellants challenge the juvenile courts order dismissing four of five counts from the Departments petitions to bring the children within the jurisdiction of the court, on the grounds that the order was not supported by substantial evidence and the courts findings did not support the order. Appellants also contend that the courts family reunification plan was an abuse of discretion. We agree that the dismissal of counts a 1 and b 1 from each of the petitions, the dismissal of count i 1 from Karens petition, and the dismissal of count j-1 from the petitions to bring Karens siblings within the jurisdiction of the court, must be reversed. However, we affirm the dismissal of count e 1 from the petition to bring Karen within the jurisdiction of the court, and find no abuse of discretion in the order for reunification services.

James and RaeAnn Martin (Martins), Richard and Rachel Peterson, and the Peterson family trust (Petersons) (collectively appellants) appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Bridgeport Community Association, Inc. (Bridgeport) on its claims against appellants for violations of Bridgeports Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Architectural Guidelines. Appellants also appeal from the courts subsequent order determining Bridgeport to be the prevailing party and awarding Bridgeport the sum of $88,671 in attorney fees.

After a jury trial, appellant Raymond McDaniel was convicted of one count of perjury by declaration (Pen. Code, 118, subd. (a)) and one count of preparing false documentary evidence. (Pen. Code, 134.) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years of formal probation on the condition that he perform 240 hours of community service. Court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.

Carline Zimbalist appeals from the judgment following her guilty plea to grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a))[1]and her admission that she took property in excess of $150,000 ( 12022.6, subdivision (a)(2)). At the time of sentencing in the instant matter, appellant and a codefendant had been sentenced in New York State on related charges and were transported to Ventura County Superior Court pursuant to an interstate detainer agreement. Appellant's codefendant, Pam Chanla, is not a party to this appeal.
The Ventura County Superior Court sentenced appellant to the low term of 16 months for the grand theft and two years for the excessive taking allegation ( 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)). The 40-month sentence was ordered to run consecutive to the sentence imposed in the New York case. Appellant was ordered to pay victim restitution of $303,249.96. ( 1202.4, subd. (f).) The court ordered a hold on appellant for transportation back to California upon completion of the New York sentence. Appellant argues that the trial court should have imposed a concurrent sentence and it erred by applying the former version of section 12022.6, the excessive taking enhancement. We invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing as to whether appellant was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause pursuant to section 1237.5 before proceeding with her appeal. We conclude that no certificate was required as to the first issue, but the second issue is barred. Court affirm the judgment.

Edward Michael Cortez appeals from the judgment following his guilty plea to assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) and his admission of gang, serious felony, strike, and prior prison term allegations. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a); 186.22, subd. (b)(1); 667, subd. (a), (b) & (d)(1) & (3); 1170.12, subd. (a)(1), (c)(1).) The court sentenced appellant to serve 14 years in state prison. Appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Court affirm.

Defendants and appellants Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (Solutions) and Canon U.S.A., Inc. (CUSA)[1]appeal from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Gregg Levin (Levin) and from the order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) after a jury returned a special verdict in favor of Levin on his claims for false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $214,470 against Solutions, CUSA, and Michael Cerame (Cerame), a private security consultant retained by defendants. The jury awarded Solutions damages in the amount of $1,840 on its cross-claims against Levin for breach of contract and violation of Labor Code section 2860. Solutions also appeals from the order denying its motion for a new trial on damages on its cross-claims for breach of contract, violation of Labor Code section 2860, and a new trial on its cross-claims for conversion, constructive fraud, and violation of Labor Code sections 2861 and 2863.
Court affirm the judgment and the orders denying the motion for JNOV and the motion for a new trial.

Defendant and appellant Memorial Dinh appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, 12031, subd. (a)(1).)
At the preliminary hearing and Penal Code section 1538.5 motion, the People introduced evidence from the hearing on appellant's prior Penal Code section 1538.5 motion (Pen. Code, 1538.5, subds. (j) and (p)) and called witnesses. The evidence was that police officers stopped appellant's car because a computer license plate check indicated that the registration was suspended. (The computer entry was alleged to have been inaccurate.) Because officers were concerned about appellant's movements in the car, he was asked to exit the car. He then gave the officers consent to search the car. The firearm was found in the trunk. Appellant was held to answer and his motion under Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied. His no contest plea followed. He was placed on felony probation for three years and ordered to complete 60 days of Cal-Trans service. The firearm was ordered destroyed.