CA Unpub Decisions

In 1991, a jury found defendant Richard Alonzo Bridgewater guilty of two counts of first degree murder, but found he was not the actual killer. It found true the special circumstance allegation defendant committed multiple murders. Defendant appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 arguing the trial court erred when it found he failed to make a prima facie case. The Attorney General concedes the error. We will reverse and remand.

The trial court sentenced defendant Richard Tyrell Carter, 17 years old at the time of his offense, to an aggregate term of 55 years to life in prison. Following an initial appeal in which this court remanded the case in light of recent changes in law relating to the prosecution of juveniles and the discretion of courts to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements, the trial court struck a prior strike conviction but not a firearm enhancement, resentencing defendant to 40 years to life. Defendant contends the trial court erred again by declining to strike or reduce the firearm enhancement. We affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant Adrian Lai guilty of three counts of stalking (Pen. Code § 646.9, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to four years four months in state prison, and required defendant to register as a sex offender for his lifetime pursuant to section 290. Defendant appeals his conviction on the basis that there was not substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings that he was guilty of stalking. Defendant also appeals the requirement that he register as a sex offender for life on the basis that the trial court erred by not considering the nature of the offenses, and that it misapplied the law and evidence concerning his current risk of sexual or violent re-offense.
On November 9, 2021, we issued an unpublished decision affirming the judgment.

This case arises out of the attempted robbery of a drug dealer by three young males that resulted in the fatal shooting of the dealer and serious gunshot injuries to the dealer’s friend. A jury found Derrick Emairi, who was not alleged to be the shooter, guilty of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664) and first degree murder (§ 187), finding true the special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the attempted commission of a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)). The jury also found true the allegation that the principal in the offenses was armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for the murder conviction, plus an aggregate consecutive term of eight years for the attempted murder conviction and firearm enhancement.

Petitioner Raymond Gonzalez (petitioner) asks us to grant extraordinary writ relief and hold a trial court, having first agreed to dismiss special circumstance and enhancement allegations against him in a criminal information, may not reconsider that dismissal order several months later on its own motion—at least in the absence of a request for reconsideration by the prosecution. We consider whether extraordinary relief should issue to decide such a question.

Is the trial court’s order denying a motion to modify spousal and child support meaningless? Appellant thinks it is. Four months after the trial court denied appellant’s motion to modify support, appellant filed a new motion to modify support. Her evidence covered the same period as the motion the court denied. The court denied the new motion on the ground appellant failed to show a change of circumstances since the last motion. Appellant believes she need only show a change of circumstances since the original support order. She is wrong. We affirm.

Appellants the County of Los Angeles and related entities (collectively, the County) challenge the trial court’s grant of a writ of mandate requiring the County to pay respondent Richard Orosco over $165,000 as backpay. In 2008, the County terminated Orosco, who had worked as a deputy sheriff, and the County’s Civil Service Commission (the Commission) sustained his termination. Orosco challenged the decision through a petition for writ of administrative mandate, seeking reinstatement and an award of backpay and other employment-related benefits, among other relief. The court ultimately granted Orosco’s petition and remanded the matter to the Commission with orders to set aside its decision, reconsider the matter in light of the court’s statement of decision, and take any further action required by law. Following the court’s decision, the County reinstated Orosco and paid him about $605,000 in backpay.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Kenneth Matthews of first degree murder. It also found true the allegation that he committed the murder while engaged in the commission of attempted rape. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison. Matthews raises nine arguments on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we reject his arguments and affirm the judgment.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) offered one of its officers, who had injured his knee on the job, a choice of light-duty assignments while he rehabilitated but told him no position was available to accommodate his temporary disability at his current location. Informed by others that jobs were available at his location, which he preferred, the officer sued the City of Los Angeles for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to reasonably accommodate and failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.). The trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment.
Because triable issues of material fact existed about whether the City violated its obligation to participate in the interactive process in good faith by misrepresenting the availability of light-duty assignments for which the officer was qualified, we reverse the order granting summary judgment.

A jury convicted David Molina (defendant) of the attempted premeditated murder of a person he believed to be a rival gang member. On appeal, defendant argues that his conviction must be reversed because (1) one of the legal theories that supports his conviction is invalid, (2) the jury instructions were defective, and (3) there was insufficient evidence. In an opinion issued on April 30, 2021, we rejected defendant’s arguments and affirmed his conviction. Our Legislature subsequently enacted Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551), which declares invalid one of the two legal theories supporting defendant’s conviction; because the presentation of the now-invalid theory was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for further proceedings.

On June 16, 2020, we issued our original opinion on this appeal from a summary denial of a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. We affirmed on the basis that defendant Johnny Lawrence Brinson (Brinson) was ineligible for resentencing on his conviction for attempted murder as a matter of law, and any trial court errors in failing to appoint him counsel and waiting for the prosecution’s response were harmless under any standard of review. (People v. Brinson (dec. Jun. 16, 2020, A157869) [nonpub. opn.].)

Plaintiffs Gina Marie Cavuoto and Evan R. Miller appeal from a judgment of dismissal following the trial court’s sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm.

The grandmother of infant A.E. took her to a hospital emergency room because she appeared to be having a seizure. X-rays revealed bleeding in her brain requiring emergency surgery, as well as multiple bone fractures in various stages of healing.
A.E.’s father, Dwayne E., eventually pled guilty to felony child abuse. He was sentenced to four years in prison. Her mother, Alicia V., either refused to believe that Dwayne had injured A.E. at all or attributed the injuries to accidents. A.E. was removed from Alicia’s care, and custody was vested in Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA).
Over the next two years, SSA provided Alicia, who is deaf, with multiple services. The case workers and service providers communicated with her through American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters.
Alicia seemed to be adept at hewing to the party line, solemnly promising never to have any contact with Dwayne again and agreeing that he was responsible for nearly killing A.E.

Suzuki Motor Corporation appeals from postremand orders setting the matter for a new trial, arguing the orders effectively denied Suzuki a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). We conclude the orders did not deny Suzuki a JNOV, and thus, are not appealable orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.