CA Unpub Decisions

In 2001, Michael Durkin used two limited liability companies—Dryden Oaks LLC and Durkin-CAC Lot 24, LLC—to purchase two lots directly adjacent to the McClellan Palomar Airport (Airport) in the City of Carlsbad, California (City). His development plans for the two lots were initially successful despite determinations by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (Authority) that the proposed projects were not compatible with the Airport. Overriding the Authority's objections, the City issued a planned industrial permit and Durkin completed the construction of a commercial building on one of the lots in 2005. He also obtained a permit from the City for construction of a second building on the other lot. Both permits included provisions in which Durkin agreed to hold the City harmless for any liability arising out of approval of the projects.

Defendant Leonard Coy Jones appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his plea. He seeks not only to withdraw the plea but to obtain the retroactive dismissal of all charges against him. Because an order denying a motion to withdraw a plea is nonappealable, we dismiss the appeal.

Defendant Jose Audel Cardenas allowed a non-resident acquaintance to grow marijuana on his property. Both defendant and his housemate had medical marijuana recommendations from a physician, but defendant failed to establish the marijuana grown on the property was for medical use. After a short court trial, the trial court found defendant guilty of cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358), possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359), attempted transportation of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)), and maintaining a place for the purpose of selling, giving away, or using marijuana (§ 11366). The court placed defendant on probation for three years and imposed various fines and fees, including a single $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee with an attached $150 penalty assessment. (§ 11372.5.)

A jury found defendant Justin Luke Bristow guilty of corporal injury to a cohabitant and acquitted him of making criminal threats. The jury also found defendant did not inflict great bodily injury during the commission of the corporal injury offense. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court committed instructional and evidentiary errors and also erroneously denied his motion for a mistrial. Defendant further contends cumulative error resulted. Finding no merit in defendant’s contentions, we affirm.

The distant origin of this bizarre case lies in the efforts of Richard Powers to escape prosecution by the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office for four counts of felony drunk driving. Fearing convictions would ruin him professionally, Powers sought to make a deal with the district attorney by which he would escape prosecution in exchange for acting as a confidential informant about another, bigger crime. Powers’s problem? He did not have a bigger crime to report. Undeterred, Powers made up a story that his friend, Marco Ambroselli, was illegally selling performance-enhancing drugs. When the district attorney deemed the information insufficient to stave off Powers’s prosecution, Powers decided to set up Ambroselli to sell a few ounces of cocaine. This ruse worked. The prosecution dropped the charges against Powers, and Ambroselli took the fall by spending several years in prison for the cocaine sale.

Willie Mervin Johnson appeals the denial of his postjudgment motion to set aside a $10,000 restitution fine imposed after appellant was convicted by jury of second degree murder of his girlfriend (Pen. Code, §§ 187/189) and personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). On October 27, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant to 15 years to life plus 10 years on the firearm enhancement. Appellant was ordered to pay a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $10,000 parole restitution fine that was stayed (§ 1202.45).

Appellant R.S. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to two of her children, son E.S. (now 14 years old) and daughter Z.H. (now five years old). We affirm the order of termination as to E.S. As to Z.H., we conditionally reverse the order for compliance with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA).

Peanut’s Bread & Butter, LLC, (PBB) challenges a trial court order denying its motion to disqualify David J. Glaubiger, Esquire, (Glaubiger) from representing John Thomas Jones (Jones) in this lawsuit.
We affirm.

Phillip Ratan has previously been adjudicated a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (See Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.) He appeals from a court order authorizing Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) to involuntarily administer psychotropic medication to him. Appellant contends there is no substantial evidence that he lacks capacity to make decisions regarding treatment with psychotropic medication. We affirm.

Appellant Byron Robert Brown appeals from an order denying a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, following a judgment entered upon his negotiated pleas of no contest to count 1 – identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a) ), count 3 –multiple identity information theft (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(3)), and count 4 – unlawful accessing and copying data (§ 502, subd. (c)(2)). We affirm the order.

Virginia C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights over Audrey M. (Audrey, born Feb. 2011). She also appeals from the denial of her petition under section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. We affirm.

Pursuant to Proposition 36, Darnell Godfrey (appellant) filed a petition to recall an indeterminate life sentence under the “Three Strikes” law, and to be resentenced as a second strike offender. His petition was denied because he was armed with a firearm during his current offense, which was being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he urges us to depart from existing precedent that makes him ineligible for resentencing. We find no basis to depart from existing precedent. Accordingly, we affirm the order.

Plaintiffs and appellants William Atkins (Atkins), Gregory K. Smith (Smith), and John Waite (Waite) (collectively appellants) appeal from the order granting summary adjudication on their fourth cause of action for intentional interference with existing contractual relations in favor of defendant and respondent Alan Morelli (Morelli). Morelli’s motion was made on the ground that the fourth cause of action was barred by the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel, based on a ruling by a Delaware court. We affirm.

Jamarae Lamonze Keyes (appellant) contends his sentence in case No. BA437331 was improperly doubled pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law because he did not receive proper Yurko advisements before waiving his right to trial on a prior serious and/or violent conviction. We find no error and affirm.