CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Bennett Taylor Gors took advantage of his friendship with the family of a six-year-old girl to molest her repeatedly over a period of about a month. He convinced her that she was his “girlfriend,” and he got her to cooperate with his sexual demands. He used his cell phone to make videos of their highly sexualized interactions.
At trial, in light of the appalling yet incontrovertible video evidence, defense counsel conceded that defendant was guilty of lewd touchings; he argued, however, that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant engaged in intercourse, sodomy, or oral copulation, which were not shown in the videos, but which the victim had recounted to investigators. Nevertheless, a jury found defendant guilty on all counts.

Office of the San Diego City Attorney, Mara W. Elliott and M. Travis Phelps for Defendant and Respondent.
San Diegans for Open Government (SDOG) appeals from an adverse judgment in its lawsuit challenging an amended and restated lease that the City of San Diego (City) entered into with Symphony Asset Pool XVI, LLC (Symphony) to lease City-owned land containing an oceanfront amusement park in San Diego's Mission Beach neighborhood, and potentially extending the term of a prior lease of the premises for a significant additional period. Specifically, SDOG contends (1) the City's approval of the amended and restated lease violates Proposition G, passed by the City's electorate in 1987, to limit commercial development on the premises; (2) the City improperly concluded that its decision to enter into the amended and restated lease was exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) because it concerned an

The trial court dismissed this action for failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, which requires that an action "be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant" (at times, section 583.310 deadline).
On appeal, plaintiff SLPR, LLC (Plaintiff) contends that the court erred "as a matter of law" on the following five grounds: (1) The court failed to consider the conduct of defendants Christian Wheeler Engineering (CWE), Charles H. Christian, and Michael B. Wheeler (together Defendants) which, according to Plaintiff, established either that Defendants waived application of section 583.310 or that Defendants were estopped to apply section 583.310; (2) the court failed to apply section 583.350, which provides for a six-month extension of section 583.310's five-year deadline under certain circumstances; (3) the court ruled that, had Plaintiff brought to the court's attention the section 583.310 dead

After eight days of trial spread over the course of one year, the family court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage and dividing the property of Timothy Wesselman (Husband) and Frederique Wesselman (Wife). Husband appeals the judgment in three main respects. First, he contends the family court erred by sanctioning him for violating the automatic family court restraining orders after he withdrew $300,000 from a predominantly community property retirement account. Second, he contends the family court erred in its treatment of the primary marital residence. Specifically, he challenges the court's rulings denying his request to charge Wife for the postseparation period during which she possessed the residence nearly exclusively, requiring the community (rather than Wife) to pay property tax arrearages incurred during that period, and awarding Wife full reimbursement for her separate property contributions toward the acquisition of the residence. Third, Husband contends the c

Appointed counsel for defendant Ronald Bernard Gutierrez filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 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.) We modify the judgment to dismiss the balance of the charging document and add two mandatory fees. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment as modified.

Defendant William Glenn Price contends the trial court violated Penal Code section 2900.5 and the equal protection clause when it denied his request for presentence custody credit by denying his motion to modify. He argues he should have received credit for time he spent out of custody but subject to the supervised own recognizance (SOR) program and global positioning system (GPS) agreement.

While on probation for two domestic violence convictions, defendant Matthew Enock Walkley committed another act of domestic violence. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior acts of domestic violence against the victim. (Evid. Code, § 1109.) He further contends the evidence was insufficient to support the true finding that he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. We affirm the judgment.

F.N. (father) and I.N. (mother), parents of the minor L.N., appeal from the juvenile court’s order continuing the minor in out-of-home placement. The parents contend there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding of detriment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 366.21, subdivision (f), or 366.22, subdivision (a). We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Real Party in Interest Encore McKinley Village, LLC (Encore) proposed and has now partially constructed a residential infill project, the McKinley Village Project (the Project), in the East Sacramento neighborhood near downtown Sacramento. Plaintiff East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City (ESPLC) challenged the City of Sacramento’s approval of the Project, contending it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 2100 et seq.).

After Jaroslaw Waszczuk was fired from his job at the University of California Davis Health Systems (UCDHS), he sought unemployment benefits which were denied because he had been discharged for misconduct. Representing himself, as he did in the administrative and trial court proceedings, Waszczuk appeals from denial of his petition for a writ of mandate to overturn the decision of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board) that found him disqualified for unemployment benefits. He contends there was no showing of misconduct and he was denied a fair hearing. He also raises issues concerning the length of his suspension before discharge, the lack of performance evaluations for the last two years, and the absence of progressive discipline. We find no merit in any of the contentions and affirm.

A jury found defendant Joseph Luna guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial by admitting the opinion testimony of the prosecution’s drug expert that defendant possessed methamphetamine for sale “beyond a reasonable doubt.” According to defendant, that testimony was highly prejudicial and grounds for a mistrial.
We hold that, because the trial court struck the challenged testimony immediately after it was presented, admonished the jury to disregard it, and then properly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for mistrial. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Petitioners and appellants Ann Marie Beach Tabb and Elizabeth Havert appeal from an order entered December 20, 2017, in favor of respondent Bruce Beach, in his capacity as executor of the estate of Donald M. Beach, terminating the probate proceedings. The appeal must be dismissed because the issues are moot. In Havert v. Beach (Dec. 27, 2018, B285862 [nonpub. opn.] (Havert I)), Havert and Tabb filed a premature notice of appeal, which we deemed to have been filed immediately following entry of the December 20, 2017 order.

In 2015, Byron Keith Street was convicted of first degree murder and several other crimes.
The trial court sentenced Street to an indeterminate term on the murder count (count 8) as follows: 25 years to life for first degree murder, 25 years to life imposed consecutively for a gun enhancement, and a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for the special circumstance of murder committed while Street was engaged in the commission of burglary. The court also sentenced Street to a total determinate term of seven years four months, to run concurrently to the indeterminate term, as follows: the four-year middle term for first degree burglary, and a total of three years four months for the other determinate terms, i.e., eight months (one-third the middle term of 24 months) each for false personation, counterfeit seal, and three counts of felony vandalism.

Petitioners and appellants Ann Marie Beach Tabb and Elizabeth Havert (also known as Elizabeth Ann Beach) appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in favor of respondent Bruce Beach, in his capacity as executor of the estate of Donald M. Beach, in this probate proceeding. Bruce contends that Tabb’s appeal from orders denying discovery motions is untimely. In the interests of justice, we deem Tabb’s premature appeal to have been filed immediately following the order discharging the executor. However, even assuming the orders were reviewable on appeal from an order discharging the executor, Tabb does not have standing to compel discovery or participate in the probate proceedings.