CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant William Sanchez (Sanchez) brought a wage and hour type case against defendant and respondent Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./FCC Construccion S.A./Impreglio S.P.A. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of all five of Sanchez’s claims pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Sanchez appeals, claiming only that his third cause of action for failure to pay wages upon termination in violation of Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203, and his fifth cause of action for unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based thereon are not arbitrable.

Jose Luis Ortega appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 as to his 1996 conviction of felony murder. We agree with Ortega the superior court erred in finding Ortega was ineligible for relief without issuing an order to show case and holding an evidentiary hearing to determine Ortega’s eligibility for relief. In denying the petition, the court relied on the jury finding true the special circumstance that Ortega committed the murder in the commission of a robbery and carjacking, even though Ortega was convicted almost two decades prior to the Supreme Court’s holdings in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark), which clarified the factors a jury should consider in finding a defendant was a major participant who acted in reckless disregard for life. The superior court also erred in engaging in premature factfinding in finding as an alternative basis for its denial of

Defendants and appellants Richard Spix, Deborah Elizabeth Martin, and Law Office of Spix & Martin (collectively, the Attorney Defendants) appeal from a judgment following a jury’s verdict finding them liable to plaintiffs and respondents LA Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company (LAI) and Peter Starflinger (Starflinger) (sometimes collectively referred to as plaintiffs) for malicious prosecution. After the trial court determined as a matter of law the Attorney Defendants had no probable cause to maintain a lawsuit in which they represented defendant, Rosa Banuelos (Banuelos), the jury determined the Attorney Defendants acted with malice and awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages. Finding no error, we affirm.

A jury found Terry Terrell Gillard guilty of committing numerous sex crimes against minors while he was a youth wrestling coach. On appeal, Gillard contends the court erred by finding him competent to stand trial, denying his motion to sever counts related to one of the victims, and excluding impeachment evidence. He also argues the court was biased and the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct. We affirm.

This is an appeal from judgment after a jury convicted defendant Jason Scott Hounihan of one count of burglary and two counts of felony vandalism. The trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year prison term and ordered him to pay a total of $12,262.33 in victim restitution. Defendant challenges the judgment on grounds of ineffective assistance from counsel in failing to request CALCRIM No. 333, which concerns lay opinion testimony; sentencing error in failing to stay execution of sentence as to each vandalism count; and due process error in refusing his request for a postsentencing restitution hearing. We reverse and remand to the trial court to address the sentencing

Plaintiffs and appellants have spent years challenging the nonjudicial foreclosure of their residential property. They filed two cases in federal court in an effort to halt foreclosure, both of which were unsuccessful.

J.V. appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order placing him on probation under parental custody. The order was supported by jurisdictional findings sustaining two counts of second degree robbery arising out of J.V.’s role in the taking of two bicycles from two younger minors. (Pen. Code, § 211.) In a separate habeas proceeding, we vacated the jurisdictional findings sustaining the second of the two counts after the Attorney General acknowledged that J.V. received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with a proposed plea deal. (In re J.V. (Dec. 16, 2021, A163008) [nonpub. opn.].)

Shannon B. Jones and her husband, Jeffrey M. Jones, (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from orders granting defendants Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP, Jean Hyams, Katherine Smith, and Darci Burrell’s (collectively, LVBH) special motion to strike and awarding LVBH attorney fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)

A jury convicted Jeffrey Ardonal Johnson of first degree murder. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in denying his Batson/Wheeler motion. He also contends he was entitled to a new trial because the jury foreperson committed misconduct by providing the other jurors with an erroneous definition of intent. Alternatively, he argues the court should have granted his motion to disclose juror information so he could obtain admissible evidence of misconduct by the foreperson. We agree with Johnson that the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to disclose juror information. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment pending further proceedings on the issue. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

After Norman Valladares rear-ended another vehicle on Highway 14, he was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor possession of an open container while driving (§ 23222, subd. (a).) Appellant admitted the allegation that he had refused a chemical test within the meaning of section 23612. The trial court sentenced appellant to three years in prison, but suspended 18 months of the sentence and ordered that portion to be served under mandatory supervision.
Appellant appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his Batson-Wheeler motion without performing a comparative analysis of the dismissed female Hispanic juror with jurors who remained on the panel. He also contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after improper statistical evidence was offered by a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer on improperly permitted re-direct examination. Appellant further contends the trial court erred i

Defendant Dwane Lee Lane pleaded no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)). At sentencing, upon defendant’s payment of victim restitution, the trial court reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor and placed defendant on probation with various terms and conditions.
Defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have received no response from defendant.
Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly) at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case.

A jury convicted Guillermo Gutierrez of assault with a deadly weapon—a screwdriver (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The trial court additionally found true allegations Gutierrez had suffered three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subds (b) & (c)(2)(A)), and three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
The court struck two of Gutierrez’s strikes and one serious felony prior, and sentenced him to an 18-year prison term, comprising an upper term of four years on the assault, doubled to eight years under the two-strikes law, plus two consecutive five-year terms for the two remaining serious felony priors.
On appeal, Gutierrez makes two claims. First, he contends the trial court prejudicially erred by allowing the introduction of DNA evidence, arguing the prosecution failed to establish requisite foundations for its admissibility under the Kelly test. Second, he claims the trial court miscalculated his custody credits, a

Appellant The House Modesto (THM) is a church in the City of Modesto. THM brought this action to recover property taxes levied by respondent County of Stanislaus (County) and paid under protest for fiscal years 2013–2014 through 2019–2020. THM’s action is premised on its claim of tax exemption (welfare exemption) under section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. At issue on appeal is the trial court’s denial of THM’s claim of exemption as to land upon which it operates a fitness center (House Fitness). THM argues the court erred in denying the exemption because House Fitness is incidental to, and reasonably necessary to, THM’s religious purpose of ministering to the “‘mind, body, soul and spirit’” of its congregants and its charitable purpose of supporting the physical well being of Modesto residents. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Bowe Cleveland obtained a $2 million judgment against Defendant Taft Union High School District (District) for negligence in assessing the threat posed by a student who shot plaintiff in the stomach with a shotgun. After the jury verdict in his favor, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 seeking the attorney fees and costs incurred because defendants denied requests for admission (RFAs) that District was aware the shooter made “violent threats” to other students in February 2012.
The trial court denied the request on the grounds that the undefined term “violent threats” could have many different meanings and the matters covered by the RFAs were not of substantial importance because the details about what the shooter said and did 11 months before the shooting needed to be presented to the jury for it to evaluate whether the reaction of District’s employees breached the standard of care. As explained below, we conclude the tria