CA Unpub Decisions

In 2016, plaintiff Susan L. Uecker filed a motion for summary judgment to collect on a note and guaranty executed by defendants Barney J. Ng and Wild Game Ng, LLC (Wild Game). The parties did not dispute that Ng and Wild Game executed the note and guaranty, or that the $1 million amount had not been repaid. Instead, Ng and Wild Game submitted evidence demonstrating the note and guaranty were part of a scheme to avoid licensing requirements by the Nevada Gaming Commission and, in fact, represented an equity investment in Wild Game rather than a loan.
The trial court excluded evidence offered by Ng and Wild Game related to the scheme to avoid Nevada licensing requirements, and granted summary judgment in favor of Uecker. Ng and Wild Game argue the trial court erred in excluding this evidence and rejecting their unclean hands and offset affirmative defenses. We agree that evidence related to the scheme to avoid Nevada licensing requirements was improperly excluded. While this evide

In this consolidated appeal, appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Sharp filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.

This appeal is from a judgment confirming an arbitration award. Appellants are numerous individuals and entities associated with the Stueve family. Respondent James Daily is an attorney who represented the Stueve family members in recovering assets that had been stolen from them by their prior attorneys. A dispute arose between the Stueve family members and Daily regarding Daily’s fees. The Stueve family members, together with several entities, initiated arbitration, contending certain agreements were void and that Daily committed malpractice, entitling them to over $2 million in damages. Daily cross-claimed against the claimants for unpaid fees. Daily prevailed. The arbitrator awarded Daily over $4 million in fees, enforceable against not only the claimants to the arbitration, but several other entities that the individual Stueve family members own, and trusts of which they are beneficiaries. The court confirmed the award. All of the entities subject to the arbitration awar

Plaintiff Troy A. Stewart occupied a room at an Extended Stay America hotel for over a year. Hotel staff asked Stewart to leave, and after Stewart refused, the hotel evicted Stewart through an unlawful detainer action. Stewart then sued Extended Stay America, Inc. and ESA Management, LLC (collectively, ESA), and two ESA employees, alleging that the allegations in the unlawful detainer action demonstrated fraud and evidenced that ESA breached contracts with Stewart.
ESA filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16), and Stewart did not oppose the motion or appear at the hearing on the motion. The court granted the motion, and Stewart appealed. Because Stewart did not oppose the motion or appear at the hearing below, he has forfeited any arguments that the trial court erred in granting the motion. We therefore affirm.

This case involves flood damage after a heavy rainstorm to property owned by Jerry Preece, Jr. and his corporation, J.R. Preece, Inc. (together, Preece), in Imperial Valley. Preece sued the Imperial Irrigation District (District) and the State of California (State) for dangerous condition of public property, nuisance, and inverse condemnation. A jury found the District not liable for dangerous condition of public property and nuisance. However, after the jury's verdicts, the trial court found the District liable for inverse condemnation and entered judgment against the District in the amount of $916,000, concluding the District was 50 percent at fault for Preece's damages. The trial court also awarded Preece attorney's fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

On July 27, 1998, 21-year-old Mallory Treadwell was scheduled to board a bus to join the California Conservation Corps. Instead, later that afternoon, a young girl found his bound, beaten, and strangled body in an irrigation ditch in Rio Linda. Juries twice found defendant David Earl Williams guilty of the first degree murder of Treadwell. Sentenced to 25 years to life in prison after his 2016 retrial, defendant appeals. He contends there is insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. The manner of the killing and defendant’s motive--his mistaken belief that Treadwell had burglarized his house--provide sufficient evidence to support the conviction for first degree murder. We affirm.

Juan Carlos Toscano appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction by a jury of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460.) The court found true allegations that he had served four prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The court struck the prison terms. It sentenced appellant to prison for the four-year middle term.

On August 22, 2016, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Richard Henry Solis with evading a peace officer under Vehicle Code section 2800.2 (count 1); driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage under Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a) (count 2); and driving an unregistered car under Vehicle Code section 4000, subdivision (a) (count 3). The complaint also alleged that defendant suffered four prior strike convictions under Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2), and 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(2)(A). The complaint further alleged that defendant suffered three prior prison convictions under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

The trial court denied defendant Juan Jose Ruiz’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Before pleading guilty, defendant was aware that the prosecution was relying, in part, on testimony from informants who were placed in defendant’s jail cell, and to whom defendant had made incriminating statements. Defendant was provided recordings and transcripts of his conversations with the informants, and with information about the crimes of moral turpitude committed by them. Defendant was also made aware at the preliminary hearing that these informants were working on behalf of the police.
At the time he pled guilty, however, defendant was not aware that the informants were former members of the Mexican Mafia, who had been provided cash and other benefits in exchange for acting as informants, and that his constitutional rights may have been violated. (People v. Dekraai (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1110.)

Appellant Antonio Rodriguez appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.26. Rodriguez challenges both the test applied by the trial court, and its exercise of discretion. We affirm.

After a first trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a), 189; counts 1 and 2) and two counts of mayhem (§ 203; counts 3 and 4). Defendant appealed that judgment, contending instructional error infected the attempted murder convictions. We agreed and reversed.
On remand, the court ruled we had reversed only as to the attempted murder convictions and thus the mayhem convictions remained. The new trial would, therefore, concern only the attempted murder charges.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Jessie C. Roberts of (1) carjacking (Penal Code, § 215, subd. (a), count 1); (2) two counts of misdemeanor false imprisonment (§ 237, subd. (a), counts 8 and 9); (3) kidnapping during a carjacking (§ 209.5, subd. (a), count 10); and (4) unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 11). The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of life in prison with the possibility of parole, and a consecutive determinate term of nine years eight months.

Christian Rascon appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction by a jury of threatening to commit a crime that would result in great bodily injury or death. (Pen. Code, § 422.) The jury found true an allegation that he had used a deadly weapon (“a stabbing instrument”). (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Appellant admitted two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and one prior serious or violent felony conviction (“strike”) within the meaning of California’s “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The trial court dismissed one of the prior prison terms. It denied appellant’s motions to dismiss the strike and reduce the felony offense to a misdemeanor. It sentenced him to prison for nine years, eight months.

A jury found defendant Russell Wayne Otto guilty of committing multiple felony sex crimes against two minors. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of nine years four months in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred when it did not allow him to impeach a prosecution witness with prior misdemeanor convictions. Anticipating that he may have forfeited this claim with respect to the witness’s conviction for spousal battery, defendant alternatively argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant further contends that the trial court prejudicially erred in discharging Juror No. 6 during deliberations. We affirm the judgment.