CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Defendant C.L. appeals from a juvenile court order declaring him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that he violated Penal Code section 422 by aiding or abetting criminal threats made by another. We agree and therefore reverse.
|
|
Shalini Kapoor, M.D., entered into a “Medical Director Services Agreement” (Director Agreement) with LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. (“LA Medical”). The Director Agreement contained an arbitration provision. So did a “Shareholders Agreement” Kapoor later signed with LA Medical shareholders Roy Winston, M.D., and Ritu Chopra, M.D.
Several years later, Scott Heckmann, equity owner of LaserAway Management, LLC (“LA Management”), who had not signed either the Director Agreement or the Shareholders Agreement, notified Kapoor that “our contract” was cancelled. Winston later confirmed the Director Agreement was terminated. Kapoor subsequently filed a complaint asserting 13 causes of action against LA Management, LA Medical, Heckmann, Winston, and Chopra (collectively defendants). |
|
Plaintiff Anne Rex sued defendant Laura Ann Pelegrin, asserting contract and malicious prosecution claims stemming from economic disputes that arose after the parties ended their romantic relationship. The claims were tried to the court, which rendered a judgment in favor of Pelegrin under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. Rex appeals the judgment. She argues the trial court erroneously excluded a witness’s testimony and made excessive sua sponte objections. Rex fails to demonstrate prejudicial error. We affirm.
|
|
Defendant Alfred Anthony Garcia appeals from an order requiring him to submit to involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication pursuant to Penal Code section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i)(I). On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues. Counsel asks this court to exercise our discretion to independently review the record (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)) or “at a minimum, conduct the level of review prescribed for [Lanterman-Petris-Short Act] conservatees” in accordance with Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). We provided defendant with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
|
|
S.M. (mother) appeals a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights to her son C.H. and choosing adoption as the appropriate permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 366.26.) Mother challenges this order based on the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to the adoption preference. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm the judgment.
|
|
In a negotiated disposition following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), defendant Joshua Lottice pleaded no contest to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (§ 21310) and admitted he suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 211, 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). He was sentenced to 32 months in prison. On appeal, Lottice challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, contending the evidence against him was the fruit of an unlawful detention. We disagree and affirm.
|
|
Y Travel, LLC (Y Travel, or lessee) appeals from the trial court’s decision, after a bench trial, in favor of 4444 W. Sunset Rd., LLC (Sunset, or lessor) on the latter’s claim for back rent on its breach of contract cause of action. Y Travel contends reversal is required because “there was substantial credible evidence [that] undermines the Superior Court’s finding that Y-Travel breached the Lease. As such, this Court may reverse the Superior Court’s Decision as a matter of law.” As we explain, that argument misstates our standard of review, which requires the appellate court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trier of fact’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling here. We therefore affirm.
|
|
Plaintiff Yan Sui was declared a vexatious litigant, failed to post the required security, and his three pending actions were dismissed. He appeals from the judgments, contending the court erred in determining he was a vexatious litigant. That determination, however, is subject to a substantial evidence review, and Sui did not include in the record the evidence the court relied upon, much less discuss it in his appellate brief. Consequently, his claims on appeal are waived.
|
|
A jury convicted Catalino Avelino of four counts of lewd or lascivious acts committed against children under age fourteen for sexually abusing three of his step granddaughters. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); all further statutory references are to this code.) The jury found true the allegation that these sex crime counts involved multiple victims. (§ 667.61.) The jury also convicted Avelino on three other counts of attempting to commit lewd acts against the girls. (§§ 664, 288, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced Avelino, who was 65 years old when he was arrested for the offenses, to 18 years to life in prison. The sentence consisted of an indeterminate 15 year term on one completed count, similar concurrent terms on the other completed offenses, a consecutive middle term of three years for one of the attempt counts, and similar concurrent terms for the other attempts.
|
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Jesus Manuel Jimenez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
|
|
Appellants Shelly and Vincent Barron (collectively, the Barrons) were involved in a car accident with Gerald Galvin, the police chief of the City of Mendota (City). Galvin, who was driving a city-owned unmarked police vehicle, was on his way home from a Fresno television station, where he gave an interview in his capacity as police chief. The Barrons filed negligence claims against Galvin and the City, but they failed to comply with the Government Claims Act, Government Code section 810 et seq. (the Act), before filing suit. The Barrons subsequently dismissed the City from the action and alleged Galvin was individually liable. Galvin moved for summary judgment on the ground he was acting within the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred; therefore, the Barrons’ failure to comply with the Act barred their action. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in Galvin’s favor.
|
|
On appeal, defendant claims that the prosecutor misstated the law during closing argument with respect to the issue of deliberation, trial counsel’s failure to object to the misstatement constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on voluntary intoxication and, cumulatively, the errors violated his rights. Defendant also claims, pursuant to the postsentencing decision in People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), that he is entitled to relief from the fines and assessments imposed until and unless the People demonstrate he has the ability to pay. Finally, defendant requests correction of a clerical error in the minute order from the sentencing hearing.
|
|
Defendant and appellant Deirdrick Eugene Bradford stole over $13,000 from a small hardware store. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had suffered a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). After the trial court denied defendant’s motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor, the court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years split, with one year in county jail and one year on mandatory supervision pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h). The trial court awarded defendant four days of presentence custody credits, and, over defense counsel’s objection, imposed various fines and fees. The court also ordered defendant to pay $13,136 in victim restitution.
|
|
Appellants and defendants Mark Thayer and Jeremy White set up sporadically to register voters and solicit customers for signatures on ballot initiatives in front of respondent and plaintiff WinCo Foods, LLC’s grocery store in Temecula. WinCo employees would ask Thayer and White to leave on the grounds they were trespassing and disturbing their customers, but Thayer and White always refused. WinCo filed a lawsuit for civil trespass and intentional interference with business relations and sought declaratory relief and an injunction against trespass.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
