CA Unpub Decisions

In this action defendant and appellant Jose Antonio Plata, following an unsuccessful motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 to suppress evidence obtained following a traffic stop, entered a plea of no contest to a single count of transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)). He was placed upon probation for three years with a county jail term of 120 days imposed. In making the plea, defendants right to appeal the ruling upon the motion to suppress evidence was reserved. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief in which he raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel represents that defendant has been apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has not filed a brief. Court have conducted the review requested by counsel and, finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

Juan Jose Reynoso appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, count 1)[1]and two counts of second degree robbery ( 211, counts 2 & 3). As to all counts, the jury found to be true the special allegations that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of each of the offenses proximately causing death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1), the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(22) and, as to count 1, that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery, a special circumstance within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). The trial court sentenced defendant to a life term without the possibility of parole plus 25 years to life on count 1, and to six years plus 25 years to life terms on both counts 2 and 3. The sentence on count 3 was made concurrent to the sentence on count 1, and the sentence on count 2 was stayed pursuant to section 654.
Court affirm.

Michael Smith appeals the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury in which Smith personally inflicted great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a), 243, subd. (d).)[1] The trial court found Smith had a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and sentenced him to a term of 14 years in state prison. Court affirm the judgment as modified to stay the concurrent term imposed for battery with serious bodily injury and to strike a $20 DNA penalty assessment. In so doing, we reject Smiths claim of instructional error and insufficient evidence to support the prior conviction allegations.

Dolores Vinci appeals from judgment against her in this action for trespass against her former landlords. She also challenges the award of fees and costs. Court modify the award of attorney fees and affirm the judgment as modified.

Shlomo Goldberg, the plaintiff in this case (plaintiff), has appealed from a judgment of dismissal with prejudice entered after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, demurrers to plaintiffs second amended complaint that were filed by the defendants. The defendants are Yuval Stelmach (Stelmach) and REM, LLC (REM).
The demurrers were sustained on grounds of res judicata, failure to join indispensible parties, failure to state a cause of action and uncertainty. Court reverse the judgment because the second amended complaint states a cause of action and can be made to state others by the addition of necessary parties.

Defendants, Dereon Jerome Harris and Anthony Darnell Lynch, appeal from their convictions for two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a)) with multiple murder special circumstance findings ( 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and two counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder. ( 187, subd. (a), 664.) The jury also found the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and a principal personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d), (e)(1).). Mr. Lynch was also convicted of two counts of firearm possession by a felon. ( 12021, subd. (a)(1).) Both Mr. Harris and Mr. Lynch argue the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jurors with CALCRIM No. 702 regarding special circumstances. Mr. Harris further argues the trial court improperly: instructed with CALCRIM No. 600; imposed consecutive sentences as to counts two and three; and failed to strike the enhanced punishment pursuant to section 186.22. Mr. Lynch further argues the trial court improperly instructed the jurors regarding eyewitness testimony and failed to define the elements of vicarious liability of an aider and abettor. Mr. Harris and Mr. Lynch join one anothers arguments to the extent that they accrue to their benefit. The Attorney General argues: the abstract of judgment should be corrected to more accurately reflect the sentence imposed on counts 5 and 6 as to Mr. Lynch; the trial court should have imposed three additional court security fees as to Mr. Harris and five additional court security fees as to Mr. Lynch ; the trial court improperly imposed a $1,000 Government Code section 76104.7 penalty assessment at to Mr. Harris; and, the trial court should have imposed and stayed a $10,000 section 1202.45 parole revocation fine as to Mr. Harris. Court modify the judgment in part but otherwise affirm it.

Ralph Perez appeals from the trial courts order granting only in part his motion to vacate the default judgment entered on Leticia Perezs petition for marital dissolution. Court affirm.

David Eugene Grey appeals the judgment following his conviction for the misdemeanor offense of annoying or molesting a child. (Pen. Code, 647.6, subd. (a).) Grey contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct. He also claims instructional error, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

A jury convicted David Bouligny (defendant) of second degree robbery (count 1) (Pen. Code, 211). Defendant admitted having suffered two prior convictions of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d); 667, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b) through (i); and 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant appeals on the grounds that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support the robbery conviction, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendants motion to strike one prior conviction.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit brought under the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq., the FEHA). The judgment was granted in favor of the defendants in the case, the Los Angeles Unified School District (the district), Constantine Colazas (Colazas), and Serena Pritt (Pritt). The plaintiff, Mansoureh Jalali (plaintiff), is a teacher employed by the district. Colazas and Pritt are administrators at an elementary school where plaintiff taught for several years. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged employment discrimination and harassment based on her ethnicity and religion.
Our review of the record convinces us that none of the employment actions that form the basis of this suit can reasonably be found to be adverse employment actions as that term is understood with respect to the FEHA. Therefore, Court affirm the summary judgment.

Moses Espinoza filed suit against several individuals and entities including California Physicians Service doing business as Blue Shield of California (Blue Shield) concerning the death of his brother. The trial court sustained Blue Shields demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment dismissing Blue Shield. Court affirm.

J.V., mother of M.G., appeals from the orders of the juvenile court terminating jurisdiction and granting father, G.G., full physical custody of M.G. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 362.4). Because there is no showing that the juvenile court abused its discretion, Court affirm the orders.

Appellant S.D. (mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition. She also challenges the courts order terminating her parental rights over her daughter, P.L.
Appellant A.L. (father) joins mother in her appeal of the juvenile courts denial of mothers section 388 petition. Father also appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating his parental rights over P.L. Court affirm the orders.

A jury convicted defendants Moisey Kelbatyrov and Michael Revell of identity theft, grand theft, tendering a bad check, and possessing a completed check with the intent to defraud (deadlocking as to defendant Revell on one count of identity theft). The trial court sentenced defendant Kelbatyrov to state prison for consecutive terms on three counts and for concurrent terms on the other two; it sentenced defendant Revell to state prison for four concurrent terms.
The nature of the appellate contentions does not implicate the circumstances underlying the offenses, so Court not relate them. Court incorporate the pertinent facts in the Discussion.