CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Luis Enrique Benitez was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a)), and sentenced to the midterm of 12 years in state prison. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in not appointing an interpreter for him. Court affirm.

Following defeat of his motions to suppress and dismiss, appellant Charles Santiago Davenport pleaded no contest to all charges and enhancements. Specifically, he pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of a firearm by a convicted misdemeanant, and to allegations that (1) at the time of committing count one, he was released from custody on bail and was personally armed with a nine millimeter firearm; and (2) within 10 years prior to committing count two, he was convicted of threatening a police officer.
Although the information alleged that appellant was ineligible for probation, the court suspended imposition of sentence for three years, placed him on probation, and required appellant to serve 365 days in county jail. This appeal followed.

This is an appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted respondent Fremont Unified School Districts motion for summary judgment. Having concluded triable issues of material fact remain with respect to the causes of action for nonpayment of wages, we reverse the judgment in that regard and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinions stated herein. In all other regards, the judgment is affirmed.

J.C.R. (Father), father of J.R., appeals from a jurisdictional order finding J.R. to be at substantial risk of suffering harm or sexual abuse due to Fathers sexual abuse of J.R.s cousin, A.N., who is the same age and gender as J.R. Father contends: (1) the juvenile court erred in admitting A.N.s out-of-court statements into evidence under the child dependency hearsay exception; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the removal of J.R. from his custody. Court reject the contentions and affirm the jurisdictional order.

Stardust Real Estate & Loans (Stardust), plaintiff and cross-defendant below, appeals from an order denying it relief from default on the amended cross-complaint filed by defendant Johnetta Maduakolam. Stardust argues the trial court should have granted relief for excusable neglect or attorney fault. Court disagree for the reasons set forth below. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Defendant Kenneth Lavern Waters appeals from a final judgment following his no contest plea, placement on probation, subsequent revocation of probation and imposition of a sentence of two years in state prison. Defendants counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), asking us to independently review the record in order to determine whether it reveals any arguable issues. Also, defendant has filed a supplemental letter brief raising various claims. Court affirm.

John Henry Richards, Jr., appeals from the revocation of his probation and subsequent commitment to state prison. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has notified defendant that he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.

G.B., a minor, appeals from a dispositional order following his admission of violating Penal Code section 211, robbery perpetrated in an inhabited dwelling. The court committed him to the Fouts Springs Youth Facility for a maximum period of nine years. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Defendant has been advised by his counsel that he could file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Court have independently reviewed the record and conclude there are no arguable issues to brief or argue.

Plaintiff Ramon Aguilera (Aguilera)[1]appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant 20th Century Insurance Company (20th Century).[2] 20th Century has filed a protective cross-appeal from the same judgment.In the second appeal, Encarnacion v. 20th Century Insurance Company (September 27, 2007, B179825 c/w B182737) [nonpub. opn.] (Encarnacion II), 20th Century appealed from a judgment in favor of Encarnacion. Encarnacion appealed from the same judgment as well as from a judgment of dismissal in a second case entered after the court sustained 20th Centurys demurrer without leave to amend. Court affirmed both judgments. Court also remanded the matter for further proceedings on Encarnacions claim for Brandt[3]fees.

Defendant Oscar Ramero De La Cruz appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial. Defendant was charged in a single count with forcible rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2))[1], and it was further alleged that he kidnapped the victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivisions (a) and (d). Defendant was found guilty and the kidnapping allegation was found true. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was heard and denied. The trial court also denied defendants motion to reconsider and sentenced him to state prison for 25 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in not granting his motion for new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, his constitutional rights were violated by not appointing an interpreter, there was insufficient evidence to prove the kidnapping allegation, the trial court should have instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 10.65 concerning honest and reasonable belief that there was consent, trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, and cumulative error warrants reversal. Court affirm the judgment.

Pharmacie Nouvelle, Inc. appeals from the judgment entered following a jury verdict in favor of A&G Wilshire LLC (A&G) and Aristo Vojdani in Pharmacie Nouvelles action for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation arising from its lease of space in A&Gs building to open an upscale boutique pharmacy offering natural and homeopathic products. Pharmacie Nouvelle, whose lawsuit sought millions of dollars in lost profits resulting from A&Gs alleged failure to provide promised parking under the building, challenges several of the trial courts evidentiary rulings, as well as the courts award of attorney fees and costs to A&G and Vojdani. Court affirm.

Javier Acevedo appeals a judgment after his conviction of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 31), with special findings that Acevedo committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang. We conclude, among other things, that: 1) substantial evidence supports his conviction of first degree murder, 2) the court did not commit reversible error by not instructing the jury on self-defense, 3) evidence of a prior assault the day before the murder was properly admitted, and 4) admission of gang expert testimony was not error. But the court erred by imposing a parole revocation restitution fine. (Id., 1202.45.) The fine is stricken. In all other respects, Court affirm.

Plaintiffs and appellants Enpalm LLC and Pico 26 LLC appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Fred and Simin Yadegar (the Yadegars) in an unlawful detainer action filed by appellants. The trial court ruled that the Yadegars were not in violation of their long-term lease and had a right to remain on the property. Appellants contend that this result was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, arguing that the term of the Yadegars tenancy was litigated in a prior action and found to be month to month. Court affirm.

Jofama Coleman appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for new trial after a jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code 187, subd. (a)). Coleman contends the jurors inadvertent review of information that disclosed he had a prior felony conviction and had been arrested for carrying a concealed weapon one month before the crime for which he was being tried constituted prejudicial misconduct warranting reversal of his underlying conviction. Although we agree the jurors review of the inadmissible booking information was misconduct, Court affirm the order denying the new trial and the underlying judgment.