CA Unpub Decisions

In 2001, defendant and appellant Zimbabwe Abdul-Malik was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)). Robbery and gang special circumstance allegations were alleged as to the murder count (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17) & (22)). Firearm use and gang allegations were alleged as to both counts (§ 12022.53, § 186.22). The charges arose from an incident in December 2000, in which defendant and two codefendants confronted the victim while he was parked in his car in the driveway of his mother’s home. An altercation ensued during which the victim was fatally shot. The victim’s car was stolen and found crashed into a pole a short distance away. (People v. Devore (Mar. 21, 2006, B170095) [nonpub. opn.].)

After Kristine Byron obtained a civil harassment restraining order against Rene McCray, Byron sought attorney fees exceeding $85,000 as the prevailing party. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice as untimely. Byron then moved to set aside that order and to extend the time to file a (renewed) fees motion. The court granted Byron’s motion in its entirety. McCray appealed. We affirm.

Ricardo Hernandez appealed from the superior court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. He contended the court, after issuing an order to show cause under section 1170.95, subdivision (c), erred by applying an incorrect standard of proof when ruling, under section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3), the prosecution proved he was ineligible for resentencing. Hernandez argued that, in requiring the prosecution merely to prove he could still be convicted of murder under changes in the law effected January 1, 2019 by Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4), the court applied a standard of proof “equivalent to the substantial evidence standard.” Hernandez argued the correct standard requires the court, acting as an independent factfinder, to determine whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of murder on a theory that is valid under current law. The People conceded (as the record shows) the superior

Petitioners A.J. (Father) and G.G. (Mother) (collectively, Parents) seek writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Parents challenge the juvenile court’s determination that they were provided reasonable reunification services. We deny the petitions.

Defendant Tony Brettkelly appeals from the denial of his motion, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), to vacate a judgment entered pursuant to a motion under section 664.6 to enforce a settlement (specifically, a stipulation for entry of judgment). Brettkelly objected to the section 664.6 motion on a number of grounds, including that the plaintiff landlord was seeking a judgment that differed from and exceeded the terms of the stipulation. However, Brettkelly did not appeal from the ensuing judgment.

This is the latest appeal in a contentious domestic violence and custody proceeding involving parents C.T. (father) and K.W. (mother). Mother contends the trial court erred in declaring her a vexatious litigant and entering a prefiling order. We find no error and affirm the order

Plaintiff Broadband ITV, Inc. (Broadband) licensed its software to defendant OpenTV, Inc. (OpenTV) through a license agreement (Agreement) that contained a limitation of liability provision. The provision states, “[i]n no event will the total liability of either party hereunder to the other party exceed, either individually or in the aggregate, the aggregate revenue share payments, if any, made by OpenTV under this Agreement (the ‘Cap’).” (All caps. omitted.)

A jury acquitted defendant Luis Alberto Ramos-Coreas of attempted murder but found him guilty of assault on a peace officer, resisting a peace officer with serious bodily injury, and battery with serious bodily injury. The jury also found true several related enhancement allegations. After admitting to a prior conviction, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 years in state prison. He contends on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that mental impairment was a defense to assault on a peace officer and to resisting a peace officer with serious bodily injury. He also asserts that the court gave conflicting instructions on the knowledge element of these two offenses. We affirm.

Defendant Jaspal Singh Deol appeals from a judgment confirming a final arbitration award. The arbitration involved a business dispute between Deol and plaintiffs Econergy, Inc. (Econergy), Prabhakar Goel (Goel), and Goel Family Ventures I LP (Goel Ventures).

In August 2021, the juvenile court terminated the dependency proceedings involving 10 year old R.B. and eight year old S.B. (collectively the children). The court’s exit orders granted joint legal and physical custody to the children’s parents, M.B. (father) and S.J. (mother), and placed the children’s primary residence with mother. Father appeals the exit orders. We affirm.

A jury found defendant Hector Rojas Medina guilty of committing sex offenses against two children and found true a multiple victim sentencing allegation. The trial court imposed a life sentence. Medina’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)

Defendant Travis Smoot was convicted by jury trial of second degree murder. On appeal, he raises various contentions related to his inability to plead not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI). He also contends his one-year prior prison term enhancement must be stricken due to passage of Senate Bill No. 136. We strike the prior prison term enhancement, remand for resentencing, and affirm in all other respects.

Defendant and appellant, George Vargas, filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, which the court denied. After defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.

H.S. (father) appeals from a juvenile court’s order at the 18-month permanency review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22) terminating his reunification services and setting a hearing under section 366.26 to consider the implementation of a permanent plan regarding his daughter, S.S. (the child). Father contends that the court failed to make the necessary finding that return of the child to his custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to her well-being, and that there was insufficient evidence to support a detriment finding. We affirm.