CA Pub. Decisions

A verdict may be overturned and a new trial granted for jury misconduct demonstrated by the sworn affidavit of a juror. In this case, both the defense and prosecution presented unsworn statements of jurors on the issue of jury misconduct, and at the urging of the trial court, the parties agreed to waive any objection to the unsworn statements in order to allow the court to reach the merits of the issue. In other words, defense counsel and the prosecutor agreed that 13 unsworn juror statements had been made under penalty of perjury. Based upon the unsworn juror statements, the court found misconduct occurred when a juror accessed the internet by cellular phone for a definition of reasonable doubt and when the jury considered punishment. The court denied the motion for new trial, without holding an evidentiary hearing, ruling that the presumption of prejudice arising from jury misconduct was rebutted.

In the underlying action, appellant Jordy Ezequiel Ochoa was charged with possession of a firearm as a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)).[1] Prior to his trial, he sought discovery under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). After the jury in appellant's first trial was unable to reach a verdict on the charge, the trial court declined to revoke appellant's probation, and appellant was convicted of the charge after a second trial. Appellant contends that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the ruling on his probation barred the second trial; in addition, he requests this court independently review the in camera proceeding conducted pursuant to Pitchess, to determine whether the trial court improperly denied disclosure of discoverable information. We reject the contention regarding the application of collateral estoppel, and following a review of the in camera proceeding, find no error under Pitchess. We therefore affirm.

In 2008, the County of Orange (Orange County or the County) sued the board of the County's retirement plan, claiming that an enhanced retirement formula for prior years of service adopted in 2001 by the County Board of Supervisors violated the California Constitution. The County now appeals from the trial court's grant of motions for judgment on the pleadings and entry of judgment in favor of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and the Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System. We conclude that the past service portion of the enhanced retirement formula does not violate the Constitution, and we affirm.

In 2008, the County of Orange (Orange County or the County) sued the board of the County's retirement plan, claiming that an enhanced retirement formula for prior years of service adopted in 2001 by the County Board of Supervisors violated the California Constitution. The County now appeals from the trial court's grant of motions for judgment on the pleadings and entry of judgment in favor of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and the Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System. We conclude that the past service portion of the enhanced retirement formula does not violate the Constitution, and we affirm.

Appellant Hypertouch, Inc. filed an action alleging that ValueClick, Inc., various ValueClick subsidiaries and PrimaryAds, Inc. (Respondents) violated Business & Professions Code section 17529.5[1], subdivision (a), which prohibits entities from advertising in a commercial electronic message that contains various types of deceptive content. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellant's claims were preempted by the â€

Appellant Hypertouch, Inc. filed an action alleging that ValueClick, Inc., various ValueClick subsidiaries and PrimaryAds, Inc. (Respondents) violated Business & Professions Code section 17529.5[1], subdivision (a), which prohibits entities from advertising in a commercial electronic message that contains various types of deceptive content. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellant's claims were preempted by the â€

Sukhsagar Pannu suffered a severe spinal injury, resulting in quadriplegia, when his Land Rover Discovery (Series 1) sport utility vehicle rolled over following a chain of collisions on the 118 Freeway near Simi Valley. Pannu sued Land Rover North America, Inc., Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Terry York Motor Cars, Ltd., doing business as Land Rover Encino (collectively Land Rover) alleging claims, among others, for strict liability based on defective design.
Following a bench trial, the court entered a judgment for $21,654,000 against Land Rover, finding stability and roof defects in the Discovery had caused Pannu's injury. On appeal Land Rover contends a new trial is warranted because the trial court erred as a matter of law in applying the â€

The procedures attendant to a criminal defendant's right to discover relevant evidence in confidential peace officer personnel files--through the filing of a so-called "Pitchess"[1] motion--are established by both statute and decisional law.[2] The defining hallmark of the process is an in camera hearing in which the trial court reviews the files at issue outside the presence of the defendant and his or her counsel. The completeness of the records is established through questioning of the custodian of records who produced them. In order to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial, the custodian must be placed under oath. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1230, fn. 4 (Mooc); Evid. Code, § 710.) In this case we decide whether the trial court's failure to administer the oath in this regard compels a conditional reversal of the judgment. We conclude that it does.

Defendant Rodrigo Caballero appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of three counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder, with findings that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, inflicted great bodily injury upon one victim, and committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).)[1] He was sentenced to 110 years to life in state prison. Caballero contends: (1) he was mentally incompetent to waive his right against self‑incrimination; (2) the failure to conduct a competency hearing deprived him of due process; (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) there was instructional error; and (5) his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In the published portion of the opinion, we conclude his sentence passes constitutional muster. In the unpublished portion, we reject the remainder of defendant's claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Humberto Miranda appeals from the judgment of conviction of attempted murder, second degree robbery, possession of a firearm by a felon and assault with a firearm. He contends principally: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction on all of the substantive charges, as well as the gang enhancement and (2) the trial court incorrectly calculated the sentence on the attempted murder conviction under the Three Strikes law.[1] We affirm.

For the following three reasons, the trial court refused to enforce a fee-sharing agreement between lawyers--plaintiff James Brown and defendant Milton Grimes--arising out of cases they handled in Texas: Brown had not performed his contractual responsibility to pay Paul Ross, a third party; Brown had unclean hands because he had unethically agreed to share his fees with Ross, a former lawyer who had resigned from the Bar; and the fee-sharing agreement violated applicable Texas law because the clients did not consent to the arrangement at the outset of the litigation. The trial court also ordered Brown to return fees he had already received from Grimes under the fee-sharing agreement less an amount for the reasonable value of Brown's services. Brown does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's factual conclusions.

Plaintiff Alec Zubarau, an amateur or â€

Plaintiff Alec Zubarau, an amateur or â€

A criminal defendant has a hard enough time defending the underlying charge. He should not "pick a new fight" with the prosecutor and yet another fight with his court appointed counsel, i. e. he should not threaten to kill them thereby creating two new cases to defend. Here, appellant is charged with having done exactly that. He created two new felony cases against himself by threatening both the prosecutor and his own lawyer. These threats created, at the least, potential conflicts of interest which led the trial court to remove the district attorney (and appoint the Attorney General) and the public defender (and appoint new defense counsel). As we shall explain, removal of the public defender was within the trial court's discretion and was a safe and rational way to proceed.[1] The trial court was trying to protect appellant's right to conflict-free counsel and the irony is that it is now faulted for doing so.
Daniel Avila appeals from the trial court's orders, entered in three separate criminal cases after a single hearing, declaring him mentally incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the Metropolitan State Hospital. He contends the trial court deprived him of a fair hearing on the issue of his mental competence and interfered with his right to be represented by counsel of his choice. Court affirm.