CA Pub. Decisions

Gang warfare shootings in Fresno one night led to verdicts finding two members of the Floradora Street Bulldogs criminal street gang Hugo Cernas and Ronald Enrique Ybarra guilty, inter alia, of the first degree special circumstances murder of a man who was not a gang member and the willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murders of a pregnant woman and another man, neither of whom was a gang member, either. Cernas and Ybarra raise numerous issues on appeal. Court vacate both sentences in toto and remand to the trial court with directions but otherwise affirm both judgments.

Owner consent defense to a charge of firing at an unoccupied vehicle requires the consent of all owners, so it was not error to convict defendant of firing at a vehicle co owned by himself and his wife where the wife did not consent. Imposition of upper term based on facts found by judge rather than jury did not violate federal constitutional right to jury trial where trial court exercised discretion to impose the upper term instead of a longer sentence that could have been imposed under the Three Strikes Law.

Owner consent defense to a charge of firing at an unoccupied vehicle requires the consent of all owners, so it was not error to convict defendant of firing at a vehicle co owned by himself and his wife where the wife did not consent. Imposition of upper term based on facts found by judge rather than jury did not violate federal constitutional right to jury trial where trial court exercised discretion to impose the upper term instead of a longer sentence that could have been imposed under the Three Strikes Law.

City violated California Environmental Quality Act in approving a new commercial development on vacant land where it failed to demand any measures to ease project's impact on an already congested nearby freeway interchange; issued environmental impact report that measured project's impacts by comparing it to a massive hypothetical office park instead of to the vacant land that actually existed at the project site; and claimed in its statement of overriding considerations that proposed project would have economic benefits superior to those of three alternatives considered in EIR because those alternatives generally propose no development or development to a lesser degree when three alternatives in reality were "as large as or larger than the proposed project" and where there was no evidence that their economic benefits would be smaller.

City violated California Environmental Quality Act in approving a new commercial development on vacant land where it failed to demand any measures to ease project's impact on an already congested nearby freeway interchange; issued environmental impact report that measured project's impacts by comparing it to a massive hypothetical office park instead of to the vacant land that actually existed at the project site; and claimed in its statement of overriding considerations that proposed project would have economic benefits superior to those of three alternatives considered in EIR because those alternatives generally propose no development or development to a lesser degree when three alternatives in reality were "as large as or larger than the proposed project" and where there was no evidence that their economic benefits would be smaller.

City violated California Environmental Quality Act in approving a new commercial development on vacant land where it failed to demand any measures to ease project's impact on an already congested nearby freeway interchange; issued environmental impact report that measured project's impacts by comparing it to a massive hypothetical office park instead of to the vacant land that actually existed at the project site; and claimed in its statement of overriding considerations that proposed project would have economic benefits superior to those of three alternatives considered in EIR because those alternatives generally propose no development or development to a lesser degree when three alternatives in reality were "as large as or larger than the proposed project" and where there was no evidence that their economic benefits would be smaller.

Accused is not guilty of bringing drugs into jail if he or she entered the jail only due to being arrested and brought there in custody.

Trial court lost jurisdiction to declare bail bond forfeited where the bond was exonerated by operation of law upon defendant's reinstatement to probation.0

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Where complaint alleged that insurer's repair estimates failed to follow industry standards because insurer routinely omitted certain labor and material costs from estimates and used its own contracted repair shops in its survey to determine the prevailing competitive repair labor rates included in its estimates, trial court properly sustained insurer's demurrers without leave to amend on grounds that complaint failed to describe how following insurer's estimates would not have restored plaintiffs' vehicles to their pre accident condition; state regulations do not specify any particular repair standards and have not required insurers to follow such standards; nothing in plaintiffs' insurance contracts required insurer to follow the standards preferred by plaintiffs; and no policy provision or law precluded insurer from including its contracted repair shops in determining prevailing competitive repair labor rates.

Insurance broker who introduced client companies to employee leasing company was not third party beneficiary of contract between client companies and leasing company by which leasing company was to obtain worker's compensation insurance covering the leased workers, thus workers' compensation insurer had no duty to defend and indemnify broker on complaints by client companies over denial of coverage under policy obtained by leasing company.

Where court following bench trial issued minute order finding that car dealers lacked standing to assert claims against car company over company's withholding of consent to their request to transfer dealership, and that dealers had unclean hands and suffered no damages arising out of a withdrawn request to transfer dealership; court made no express factual findings on issue of whether company's withholding of consent was unreasonable; and plaintiffs did not request a formal statement of decision, object to court's factual findings, or bring any ambiguities or omissions in those findings to court's attention; doctrine of implied findings compels inference that court impliedly made every factual finding necessary to conclude company did not unreasonably withhold consent. Where dealers secretly operated as a company dealership using a former dealer's identification number and by misrepresenting to company that former dealer was still acting as its authorized dealer, substantial evidence supported jury verdict that dealers committed fraud or made negligent misrepresentations to company. Trial court properly awarded restitution to company for dealer sales incentives it paid where court found that dealers sold company's vehicles to public without a dealer sales license issued by state, and used former dealer identification number to order new vehicles and parts and to obtain dealer sales incentive payments and warranty repair reimbursements from company.

Where court following bench trial issued minute order finding that car dealers lacked standing to assert claims against car company over company's withholding of consent to their request to transfer dealership, and that dealers had unclean hands and suffered no damages arising out of a withdrawn request to transfer dealership; court made no express factual findings on issue of whether company's withholding of consent was unreasonable; and plaintiffs did not request a formal statement of decision, object to court's factual findings, or bring any ambiguities or omissions in those findings to court's attention; doctrine of implied findings compels inference that court impliedly made every factual finding necessary to conclude company did not unreasonably withhold consent. Where dealers secretly operated as a company dealership using a former dealer's identification number and by misrepresenting to company that former dealer was still acting as its authorized dealer, substantial evidence supported jury verdict that dealers committed fraud or made negligent misrepresentations to company. Trial court properly awarded restitution to company for dealer sales incentives it paid where court found that dealers sold company's vehicles to public without a dealer sales license issued by state, and used former dealer identification number to order new vehicles and parts and to obtain dealer sales incentive payments and warranty repair reimbursements from company.