CA Pub. Decisions

Defendant and appellant Jimmy Sigala was convicted by jury of three counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a).)[1] The jury found that defendant had substantial sexual contact with each victim (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) and committed an offense set forth in section 667.61, subdivision (c) against more than one victim.[2] Defendant admitted two prior convictions under the three strikes law. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) Defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of 45 years to life.
In this timely appeal, defendant argues Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2008-2009) CALCRIM No. 1120, which defines the elements of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 for purposes of the continuous sexual abuse statute, erroneously advises the jury that the â€

In Verdin v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1096 (Verdin), our Supreme Court held that the prosecution had no right to compel a mental examination of a defendant by a retained prosecution expert because such an examination is a form of discovery that is not authorized by statute or mandated by the Constitution. Here, we hold that a 2010 amendment to the California discovery law authorizes such a mental examination of a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). (Pen. Code,[1] § 1054.3, subd. (b), see also § 1027.)
Calvin Leonard Sharp petitions this court for a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order of January 25, 2010, granting the People's motion for a mental examination by a prosecution-retained expert. The People's motion was granted by the trial court pursuant to section 1054.3, subdivision (b)(1), a provision in the California discovery law which became effective on January 1, 2010 (section 1054.3(b).)[2] We issued an alternative writ and real party in interest filed a return.
Sharp contends that section 1054.3(b) does not apply to a determination of sanity, and that the trial court has no other authority to compel a mental examination by a prosecution-retained expert in a case where the defendant pleads NGRI. (§ 1027.) Sharp also claims section 1054.3(b) was improperly applied retrospectively, the trial court violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the due process clause, and the court abused its discretion. We conclude that section 1054.3(b) applies to determinations of sanity under section 1027 and that Sharp's other contentions have no merit. Accordingly, we deny the writ.

William Tyndall Morrison appeals from a judgment after conviction by jury of preparing false evidence in violation of section 134. The trial court sentenced him to eight months in state prison[2], suspended his sentence and granted him a five-year term of probation.
Appellant contends that section 134 does not apply to a probationer who provides a falsified urine sample to his probation officer if he provides it with intent to avoid a hearing. Alternatively, appellant contends that the trial court invaded the role of the jury when it instructed the jury that probation drug testing is an "inquiry authorized by law" and a probation revocation hearing is a "proceeding or inquiry authorized by law," within the meaning of the statute. We affirm.

State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm) petitions for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950[1] of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's opinion and order denying reconsideration of a joint supplemental findings and award. In that award, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that lien claimant Carl Pearson, husband of applicant Francisca Apparicio, provided Apparicio with attendant care services 24 hours every day from July 24, 2003, and that Pearson was entitled to compensation for those services at $30 per hour. The total reimbursement to Pearson was $1,520,640. We conclude that Apparicio and Pearson's ex parte communications to a medical examiner violated the prohibition against ex parte communications in workers' compensation regulations. That violation requires disqualification of the medical examiner and the striking of the medical examiner's reports and testimony. We also conclude that the award of compensation to Pearson for caregiver services was unreasonable, was not authorized by section 4600, subdivision (a), and was not supported by substantial evidence. We annul the opinion and order denying reconsideration and order the matter remanded with directions to disqualify the medical examiner, to strike reports and opinions of the medical examiner, to select a new medical examiner, and to conduct proceedings to redetermine and recalculate compensation to be awarded lien claimant Pearson.

A former school district employee filed a petition for writ of traditional mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) to compel the district to reinstate him as a high school baseball coach. The primary issue in this case is whether the district had a mandatory duty under the Education Code to classify the petitioner as a â€

A former school district employee filed a petition for writ of traditional mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) to compel the district to reinstate him as a high school baseball coach. The primary issue in this case is whether the district had a mandatory duty under the Education Code to classify the petitioner as a â€

A modification decision.

As alleged in this case, plaintiff, a married woman, obtained an adjustable rate loan from a bank to purchase real property secured by a deed of trust on her residence. About two years into the loan, she could not afford the monthly payments and filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 701–784). She intended to convert the chapter 7 proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding (11 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1330) and to enlist the financial assistance of her husband to reinstate the loan, pay the arrearages, and resume the regular loan payments.
Plaintiff contacted the bank, which promised to work with her on a loan reinstatement and modification if she would forgo further bankruptcy proceedings. In reliance on that promise, plaintiff did not convert her bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 proceeding or oppose the bank's motion to lift the bankruptcy stay. While the bank was promising to work with plaintiff, it was simultaneously complying with the notice requirements to conduct a sale under the power of sale in the deed of trust, commonly referred to as a nonjudicial foreclosure or foreclosure. (See Civ. Code, §§ 2924, 2924a–2924k.)

As alleged in this case, plaintiff, a married woman, obtained an adjustable rate loan from a bank to purchase real property secured by a deed of trust on her residence. About two years into the loan, she could not afford the monthly payments and filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 701–784). She intended to convert the chapter 7 proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding (11 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1330) and to enlist the financial assistance of her husband to reinstate the loan, pay the arrearages, and resume the regular loan payments.
Plaintiff contacted the bank, which promised to work with her on a loan reinstatement and modification if she would forgo further bankruptcy proceedings. In reliance on that promise, plaintiff did not convert her bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 proceeding or oppose the bank's motion to lift the bankruptcy stay. While the bank was promising to work with plaintiff, it was simultaneously complying with the notice requirements to conduct a sale under the power of sale in the deed of trust, commonly referred to as a nonjudicial foreclosure or foreclosure. (See Civ. Code, §§ 2924, 2924a–2924k.)

The juvenile court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1] finding true the felony charge that minor Brandon T. committed the crime of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). The court declared Brandon to be a ward of the court and ordered him to be placed at home on probation. Brandon appeals from the adjudication/disposition order.
Brandon's counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On March 11, 2010, we advised Brandon that he personally had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We also directed his appointed counsel to send the record and opening brief to Brandon immediately. We received no response.

A creditor of a bankrupt corporation sought to recover payment in state court from an individual based on an alter ego theory of liability. The individual argued that the alter ego claim belonged to the bankruptcy estate, because it alleged general injuries to the corporation that could establish a basis of liability for all corporate debts, and therefore, the state court action should be stayed. The trial court allowed the action to proceed to trial and found in favor of the creditor. On appeal, the individual contends that the action should have been stayed and the trial court erred at trial.
In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that the creditor's action to hold the individual liable as an alter ego for a creditor's substantive causes of action against a bankrupt corporation was not the property of the bankruptcy estate. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we conclude that the record on appeal is inadequate to review the contentions of error at trial. We affirm.

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), on the eve of a hearing to terminate parental rights to the minor (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) and determine whether the child's foster parents should be designated prospective adoptive parents (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (n)), the child's mother filed a relinquishment of her parental rights, designating the child's maternal aunt as the person with whom she intended the child to be placed for adoption (Fam. Code § 8700, subd. (f)). Despite having been granted numerous opportunities to visit with the child, the aunt had failed to form a bond with the child, who was quite attached to the foster parents with whom he had spent much of his life. Nonetheless, the aunt, the mother, and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) sought the immediate placement of the child with the aunt, a position which brought them in conflict with the foster parents and the minor. At the hearing, the dependency court apparently believed that its hands were tied by the mother's designated relinquishment. Upon receipt of the official acknowledgement of mother's relinquishment, the court immediately terminated the hearing, and lifted its previous order which had prevented DCFS from removing the child from the foster parents' home without court approval.

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), on the eve of a hearing to terminate parental rights to the minor (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) and determine whether the child's foster parents should be designated prospective adoptive parents (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (n)), the child's mother filed a relinquishment of her parental rights, designating the child's maternal aunt as the person with whom she intended the child to be placed for adoption (Fam. Code § 8700, subd. (f)). Despite having been granted numerous opportunities to visit with the child, the aunt had failed to form a bond with the child, who was quite attached to the foster parents with whom he had spent much of his life. Nonetheless, the aunt, the mother, and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) sought the immediate placement of the child with the aunt, a position which brought them in conflict with the foster parents and the minor. At the hearing, the dependency court apparently believed that its hands were tied by the mother's designated relinquishment. Upon receipt of the official acknowledgement of mother's relinquishment, the court immediately terminated the hearing, and lifted its previous order which had prevented DCFS from removing the child from the foster parents' home without court approval.

Plaintiffs Adolfo Arzate and Juan Ortiz, members of the Teamsters Union who own their own trucks, brought this wage and hour class action on behalf of truck drivers who were paid by defendant Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc., to transport cargo between ports and the facilities of defendant's customers. Plaintiffs alleged they were defendant's employees, and asserted causes of action under the Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due upon discharge, and failure to provide itemized wage statements, along with a cause of action for unfair business practices.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees. The trial court granted defendant's motion and entered judgment for defendant. We reverse the judgment.