CA Unpub Decisions

case No. 15F07345, a jury convicted defendant Oshea Duarte of conspiracy to commit robbery (count one), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (count two), robbery (count three), and possession of a firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony (count four). The jury found true that defendant committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (the Oak Park Bloods), with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) With respect to count three, the jury also found true that at least one principal intentionally and personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (e)(1).)

In 2005, the trial court sentenced defendant Carl Dwayne Mitchell to an aggregate term of 384 years to life in prison. After two appeals, defendant’s sentence remained the same, though an enhancement was stricken. Defendant then challenged the manner in which he was resentenced through three different petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, all of which the trial court denied. Failing with his writ petitions, defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment (seeking to reverse the court’s order denying his final writ petition), which the trial court also denied. Defendant appealed from that order, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion. (Case No. C087458.)

Defendant Jennifer Mandelbaum was married to plaintiff Meir Gurvitz’s son, Joseph Gurvitz. When Jennifer and Joseph divorced, Meir and a company he controlled, Freshbrook Ltd., were included in the divorce proceedings as party claimants, because Freshbrook had a lien on the couple’s home, a marital asset. Jennifer’s mother, defendant Sheryl Mandelbaum, is an attorney and helped represent Jennifer in the divorce. Jennifer, Joseph, Meir, and Freshbrook all reached a settlement agreement memorialized in a 2017 deal memorandum, which was entered as a stipulated judgment by the family law court in March 2018.

Defendant Jennifer Mandelbaum was married to plaintiff Meir Gurvitz’s son, Joseph Gurvitz. When Jennifer and Joseph divorced, Meir and a company he controlled, Freshbrook Ltd., were included in the divorce proceedings as party claimants, because Freshbrook had a lien on the couple’s home, a marital asset. Jennifer’s mother, defendant Sheryl Mandelbaum, is an attorney and helped represent Jennifer in the divorce. Jennifer, Joseph, Meir, and Freshbrook all reached a settlement agreement memorialized in a 2017 deal memorandum, which was entered as a stipulated judgment by the family law court in March 2018.

Kacey Gerard Ephriam appeals from a postjudgment order summarily denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 as to his first degree murder conviction. Ephriam contends his petition stated the necessary elements for eligibility for relief and the trial court erred in summarily denying his petition. Because the record of conviction shows Ephriam aided and abetted the commission of the murder with the intent to kill, we affirm.

After his car was struck by another car, Kenneth Jacobs filed a negligence action against Dana Lynn Pritz, an insured person on the other car. Shortly after the statute of limitations ran, Jacobs named Rachel Ann Pritz, apparently Dana’s daughter and the other car’s driver, as a defendant in his first amended complaint through a “Doe” amendment. Jacobs subsequently filed an “incorrect name” amendment to his first amended complaint substituting Rachel for Dana as the only named defendant, asserting he had incorrectly named Dana rather than Rachel. Relying on the statute of limitations, Rachel moved for summary judgment and demurred to the incorrect name amendment. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion and sustained the demurrer. Jacobs appeals and we affirm.

Cross-defendant St. Denis Homeowners Association (HOA) appeals from the trial court’s grant of cross-complainant Patricia Kelly’s (Kelly) application for a preliminary injunction enjoining the HOA from removing trees next to Kelly’s townhouse. The HOA contends the trial court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction because the trial court’s findings in the HOA’s favor precluded Kelly from showing a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of her claims. The HOA also argues that trial court erred in finding the interim harm to Kelly outweighed the harm to the HOA. We affirm

In accordance with our prior notification to the parties that we might do so, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177–180.)

Defendant Guillermo Andre Hernandez appeals from the trial court’s imposition of a three-year prison term after Hernandez admitted to a violation of probation. Hernandez’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. Having done so, we affirm.

Defendant Guillermo Andre Hernandez appeals from the trial court’s imposition of a three-year prison term after Hernandez admitted to a violation of probation. Hernandez’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. Having done so, we affirm.

Andrew H. (Minor) appeals from a dispositional order and related jurisdictional orders sentencing him to a term in juvenile hall based on a finding that he forcibly raped his girlfriend. Minor contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he used violence, force, or fear to compel his girlfriend to have sex, and that the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the affirmative defense that he had a reasonable mistaken belief that she had consented to intercourse. Although the evidence might have supported findings in minor’s favor, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the adverse findings, so that we must affirm.

Appellant Carl Anthony Grimes appeals from the trial court’s order sentencing him to state prison after finding he had violated the terms of his probation. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. Having done so, we affirm.

Appellant Carl Anthony Grimes appeals from the trial court’s order sentencing him to state prison after finding he had violated the terms of his probation. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. Having done so, we affirm.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant Thurmon L. Clemons Jr., IV entered a plea of no contest to one count of first degree burglary in exchange for the trial court’s promise that he would retain his right under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence of his confession made during a police interview. After his Miranda motion was denied, he was sentenced to a stipulated term of two years in state prison. The trial court issued a certificate of probable cause to preserve appellant’s Miranda claim on appeal. Appellant now contends that his conviction must be reversed because his plea was induced by the illusory promise that he could obtain appellate review of his Miranda claim.