CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants Athena Christine Morales and Tamara Lee Donohue appeal following their convictions by no contest plea to a violation of Penal Code section 530.5 and multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for sale. Each defendant’s appellate attorney has filed a brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified each defendant of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf within 30 days. That 30-day period has elapsed and we have received no response from either defendant. We will affirm the judgments.

Appellant C.G., paternal grandmother of M., appeals from an order granting the motion of respondent L.T., mother of M., to “unjoin” appellant as a party from the family law case. Appellant contends that the trial court’s order was based on erroneous standards of law and constituted an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

Appellants Maria and Rafael Leon seek review of a judgment dismissing their class action against respondent Superior Court of Santa Cruz County. Appellants seek review of orders sustaining without leave to amend respondent’s demurrer to two causes of action in their original complaint and an additional cause of action in their first amended complaint. Appellants contend that (1) they stated adequate causes of action for breach of mandatory duty and negligence in their original complaint; (2) they pleaded viable claims for breach of contract and declaratory and injunctive relief; and (3) the action was not moot. Finding parts of appellants’ original complaint sufficient to withstand demurrer, we must reverse the judgment.

Francisco Ledesma appeals the judgment entered after he pled guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a girlfriend (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted allegations he had suffered a prior strike conviction (id., §§ 667, 1170.12) and had served five prior prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to three years in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded him 864 days of presentence custody credit.

Fabian Andrew Medina pled guilty to one count of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460) and one count of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to 16 months in state prison. Medina contends we should reverse his conviction and sentence because entry into a commercial establishment to use stolen credit cards must be charged as misdemeanor shoplifting pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. (§ 459.5, subd. (b); see People v. Gonzales (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 876-877 (Gonzales).) The Attorney General argues we should dismiss Medina’s appeal because he neither filed a petition for resentencing (§ 1170.18, subds. (a) & (f)) nor obtained a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). We agree with the Attorney General’s second argument, and dismiss the appeal.

Davshawn Laray Hennes was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of residential burglary and one count of attempted residential burglary. In a bifurcated bench trial the court found true the special allegations that Hennes had suffered two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of both Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a), and the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). After granting in part Hennes’s motion to dismiss his prior strike convictions, the court sentenced him to an aggregate indeterminate state prison term of 45 years four months to life.

Mother M.H. appeals the jurisdictional findings for her now eight-year-old son, A.H., based on domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend, A.I. At the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court removed A.H. from mother’s care, placed A.H. with his father, T.H., ordered monitored visitation for mother, and terminated jurisdiction. Mother does not challenge A.H.’s removal, placement with his father, or termination of jurisdiction. Her only claim on appeal is that there was no substantial evidence the domestic violence between mother and A.I. harmed A.H. Finding both that the appeal is moot, and that, in any event, substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional finding, we affirm.

Thanh Van Jensen appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and one count of battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). Appellant admitted, and the trial court found true, allegations that appellant had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12, subds. (a) & (c)) and that appellant had served one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The jury found true an allegation that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§§ 12022.7, subd. (b), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). He was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 33 years to life. Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss his prior strikes. He also contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of great bodily inj

Plaintiff Geoffrey Commons appeals from a judgment entered against him and in favor of defendant Bank of America, N.A. (BofA) after the trial court granted without leave to amend BofA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Commons contends the trial court erred by refusing to grant him leave to amend the complaint. We conclude that Commons has not demonstrated that he can allege sufficient facts to state any of his causes of action except the cause of action for breach of contract. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment as to the breach of contract cause of action insofar as it denies Commons leave to amend, and affirm the judgment as to the remaining causes of action.

Plaintiff Lauren Kattuah appeals from a judgment in favor of a law firm, defendant Yuhl, Carr, LLP; a member of that firm, defendant James P. Carr; and an associate, defendant Tyler J. Barnett. The judgment followed an order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment of plaintiff’s malpractice complaint. Plaintiff contends summary judgment was improper for two principal reasons: (1) defendants provided only inadmissible evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment; and (2) plaintiff provided an expert witness declaration that raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether defendants had satisfied their professional duty to preserve evidence. We find no basis for reversal, and affirm.

A jury convicted Michell Antwone Johnson of second degree robbery. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of third party culpability; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss one or more of his prior strikes; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs Adolfo and Vera Cornavaca appeal from a judgment following a jury trial. Plaintiffs are the parents of Adolfo Cornavaca, Jr. (the decedent), whom defendant Mark Colby Horwedel struck and killed with his car. Plaintiffs sued defendant for negligence in the decedent’s wrongful death. The first jury trial resulted in a mistrial after plaintiffs’ opening statement. Following a second jury trial, the jury found defendant negligent, but, by a nine-to-three vote, found the negligence was not a substantial factor in the decedent’s death.
We agree with plaintiffs that they showed unrebutted evidence of juror misconduct resulting in prejudicial error due to a juror’s failure to deliberate, and thus we remand for a new trial. For the benefit of the trial court, we also address three evidentiary challenges that plaintiffs raise, as well as plaintiffs’ contentions that instructional error, juror misconduct, and attorney misconduct occurred.

Edward L. Cain, Jr. (Cain) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of respondent Rudy Durand (Durand) following a court trial on the fourth amended complaint. Durand filed a complaint against Cain and others seeking damages related to a series of transactions in which Durand quitclaimed his real property to Cain in exchange for certain promises by Cain, and a “Compensation-Lien Agreement” in which Cain agreed to pay Durand for services he provided in connection with a lawsuit filed in federal court. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Durand for $1,138,556.88. We reverse the trial court’s judgment for breach of the Agreement and affirm it in all other respects.

Guo Ping Luo and Guo Min Li (Appellants) appeal from the judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissing their appeal to that court from an order of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLE), holding them liable for $52,004.96 in wages, penalties and interest that DLE had determined to be due to their former employee, respondent Feng Lai Zhang (Zhang). In appealing the DLE order, Appellants did not apply for or post the bond or undertaking required by Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (b) (Labor Code section 98.2(b)), or seek waiver of that requirement as authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 995.240. The trial court ruled their failure to do so barred their appeal and entered judgment against them. We affirm.