CA Unpub Decisions

On October 1, 2018 the juvenile court sustained an amended dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), finding that Tina and Gino P., Tina’s husband of more than 30 years and the father of her two children, Stevie and Sonny P., had a history of engaging in violent physical altercations in their children’s presence and that such domestic violence, and Tina’s failure to protect the children, placed Stevie and Sonny at substantial risk of serious physical harm. The court also sustained allegations Gino had a history of abusing, and currently abused, alcohol; such substance abuse placed his children at substantial risk of serious physical harm; and Tina failed to protect the children from Gino’s substance abuse (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)).

Tokio Marine insures Panasonic Corporation of North America and PASCA (collectively Panasonic). On January 19, 2021 Tokio Marine filed an amended complaint against Prestige asserting one cause of action for “Carrier Liability under the Carmack Amendment.” Tokio Marine alleged that on or about March 6, 2020 Prestige, an interstate motor carrier, received a shipment of 1,024 cartons of lithium ion batteries “for carriage and delivery from Panasonic c/o Hanky Hanshin Express (USA) Inc. at 1561 Beachey Place, Carson, California to Panasonic at 10800 Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, Missouri.” The complaint attached a copy of a bill of lading showing PASCA as the consignee, Prestige as the carrier and a “Carrier Signature” acknowledging receipt of the cargo in good order.
Prestige’s driver was involved in a single vehicle accident, in which the tractor trailer went off the road and overturned.

Tokio Marine insures Panasonic Corporation of North America and PASCA (collectively Panasonic). On January 19, 2021 Tokio Marine filed an amended complaint against Prestige asserting one cause of action for “Carrier Liability under the Carmack Amendment.” Tokio Marine alleged that on or about March 6, 2020 Prestige, an interstate motor carrier, received a shipment of 1,024 cartons of lithium ion batteries “for carriage and delivery from Panasonic c/o Hanky Hanshin Express (USA) Inc. at 1561 Beachey Place, Carson, California to Panasonic at 10800 Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, Missouri.” The complaint attached a copy of a bill of lading showing PASCA as the consignee, Prestige as the carrier and a “Carrier Signature” acknowledging receipt of the cargo in good order.
Prestige’s driver was involved in a single vehicle accident, in which the tractor trailer went off the road and overturned.

Defendant was charged, along with codefendant Jose Steven Ramos, also known as Chepe, with one count of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), § 664; count 1) and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246; count 3). It was alleged the attempted murder was committed for the benefit of a gang (§ 186.22), and that defendant personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury to the victim (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d), 12022.7, subd. (a)). The gang allegation and firearm use allegations pursuant to section 12022.53 were also alleged as to count 3. (Count 2 was dismissed before trial.) Codefendant Ramos is not a party to this appeal.
1. The Shooting
On July 9, 2016, G.C. was on his way to visit a friend. (We refer to the victim and witnesses by their initials to protect their privacy.) He was driving his red or burgundy-colored Ford Edge.

In March 2020, the Lake County District Attorney filed an information in case no. CR956736 (the “dirk case”) charging Gorrin with felony carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310). Gorrin moved to suppress evidence of the weapon. Following a contested hearing, the trial court denied the suppression motion. In June 2021, Gorrin pleaded no contest to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger.
B. Case No. CR959066
In December 2020, the Lake County District Attorney filed an information in case no. CR959066 (the “domestic violence case”) charging Gorrin with inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant with whom he was in a dating relationship (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2), and battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, the information alleged Gorrin personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subds. (a), (e)).

Plaintiff Oak Hill Park Company (Oak Hill) appeals an order awarding real party in interest Let Antioch Voters Decide (LAVD) $66,725 in attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 based on LAVD’s opposition to Oak Park’s pre-election challenge to a local ballot initiative. Oak Hill contends that the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to LAVD because, among other reasons, LAVD did not enforce an important right affecting the public interest. Oak Hill’s request for a restraining order was denied based solely on a declaration submitted by the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters (county registrar) for the City of Antioch (the city) establishing that removal of the initiative from the ballot at that late date would interfere with the election process.

Convicted in 1990 of second degree murder as an aider and abettor or coconspirator, Juan Aboytes Lopez, Jr. filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former Penal Code section 1170.95 (renumbered § 1172.6, amended by Stats. 2022, ch. 10, effective Jun. 30, 2022). The People concede that the trial court erred by relying on an inapplicable first degree felony murder theory in denying the petition. We agree and reverse.
According to this court’s opinion in People v. Lopez (Jun. 14, 1991, H006857, H007747) [nonpub. opn.], Luis Sandoval was murdered in front of the Watsonville Public Library on November 2, 1988. Lopez was driving Emilio Rocha’s car when Rocha fired the fatal shotgun blast from the front passenger seat. Lopez was charged by information with murder (§ 187) and with being an accessory after the fact (§ 32).

In June 2013, Cortez stabbed his friend multiple times, including once in his back as his friend tried to flee. His friend testified at trial that Cortez was accompanied by his girlfriend and another accomplice during the commission of the crime.
In February 2015, a jury convicted Cortez of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187) and found true the allegations that he personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court also held a court trial on Cortez’s three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). After admitting certified conviction records for Cortez’s prior strikes, the trial court found the prior strike conviction allegations to be true.
Cortez subsequently filed a motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, requesting that the trial court dismiss one or more of his prior strike convictions. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.

In June 2013, Cortez stabbed his friend multiple times, including once in his back as his friend tried to flee. His friend testified at trial that Cortez was accompanied by his girlfriend and another accomplice during the commission of the crime.
In February 2015, a jury convicted Cortez of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187) and found true the allegations that he personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court also held a court trial on Cortez’s three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). After admitting certified conviction records for Cortez’s prior strikes, the trial court found the prior strike conviction allegations to be true.
Cortez subsequently filed a motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, requesting that the trial court dismiss one or more of his prior strike convictions. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.

On August 23, 2019, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office filed a first amended information charging Lua with six counts of lewd or lascivious acts by force, violence, duress, menace, and fear on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); counts 1-4, 18 & 19), two counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (a); counts 5 & 6), six counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts 7 10, 20 & 21), two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (sexual intercourse) (§ 269; counts 11 & 12), four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (oral copulation) (§ 269; counts 13, 14, 22 & 23), two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (sexual penetration) (§ 269; counts 15 &16), and one count of sending harmful matter to a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a)(1); count 17).

In an information, defendant was charged with the attempted deliberate and premeditated murder of L.L. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a); count 1), attempted kidnapping of L.L. (§§ 207, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a); count 2), stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count 3); assault with a deadly weapon upon Nathaniel P. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 4), and unlawful tampering with a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10852; count 5). The prosecution also alleged defendant was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offenses charged in counts 1 through 3. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).)
A jury trial was conducted before Judge Pham (first trial), and defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping, stalking, and unlawful tampering with a vehicle. The jury also found defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of the kidnapping and stalking offenses. Defendant was found not guilty of the assault charge.

We granted a rehearing in this matter because we wanted to give additional consideration to the question of costs on appeal. Having done so, we conclude no changes are warranted. Mid-Wilshire Property, L.P. (Mid-Wilshire), and Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center, appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents Dr. Leevil, LLC (Dr. Leevil), and Lido Holding Company, LLC (Lido), entered after a proceeding bearing a passing resemblance to a trial took place in the superior court. This proceeding began in August 2017 and ended in November 2019. The two-year suspension was necessary because a core issue in the case – whether a late fee sought by Dr. Leevil was an unlawful penalty – was before a court in Ventura County. The record indicates that all parties and the court understood how crucial the resolution of this issue was, right up until the last day of trial in November 2019. Then it was ignored.

Petitioner Lawrence Earl Nadeau (also known as Larry Nadeau) is currently in the custody of respondent, the warden of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Starting in 1998, petitioner began serving an indeterminate prison term following a conviction of attempted murder in Imperial County. While serving that sentence in prison he incurred subsequent convictions, resulting in additional determinate judgments in 2009 in Lassen County and in 2019 in Kern County. In 2020, however, petitioner’s attempted murder conviction from Imperial County was vacated and, retroactively, he was deemed to have fully served that judgment as of 2004.
Once the judgment from Imperial County was retroactively deemed served, CDCR assigned December 30, 2017, as the starting point for petitioner’s remaining prison term.

Petitioner Lawrence Earl Nadeau (also known as Larry Nadeau) is currently in the custody of respondent, the warden of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Starting in 1998, petitioner began serving an indeterminate prison term following a conviction of attempted murder in Imperial County. While serving that sentence in prison he incurred subsequent convictions, resulting in additional determinate judgments in 2009 in Lassen County and in 2019 in Kern County. In 2020, however, petitioner’s attempted murder conviction from Imperial County was vacated and, retroactively, he was deemed to have fully served that judgment as of 2004.
Once the judgment from Imperial County was retroactively deemed served, CDCR assigned December 30, 2017, as the starting point for petitioner’s remaining prison term.