CA Unpub Decisions

Camino Real Collision Center (Camino) appeals from the trial courts enforcement of a contracts forum selection clause to dismiss Caminos lawsuit against Boltek International, Inc. and its president. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Daryl Anderson (defendant) of three counts of assault with a firearm (Penal Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)),[1]one count of attempted murder ( 664/187, subd. (a)) and two counts of possession of a firearm by a minor ( 1201, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 44 years to life, which included a ten year gang enhancement imposed under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1).
Defendant argues that the People adduced insufficient evidence to prove that (1) the firearm defendant used on October 8, 2004 to commit two of his assaults was either real or, if real, loaded; and (2) defendant committed any of his crimes with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Court conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support defendants firearms convictions and the gang enhancement.

Gene Shaffer appeals from the judgment entered against him on his complaint for partition and an accounting against Otis Wallace and Gonzalo Posada and in favor of Wallace on Wallaces cross-complaint for partition and damages. Shaffer contends the trial courts equitable rulings on the partition and accounting causes of action were premised on a finding of fraud for which there was insufficient evidence. He also argues the court erred in allowing Wallace to amend his cross complaint to conform to proof at trial and awarded inconsistent and unauthorized remedies to Wallace and Posada. Finally, he contends the award of expert costs was improper. With the exception of the award of costs, Court affirm.

Defendants and appellants Bolton Mitchell (Mitchell) and Donald Jordan (Jordan) (collectively, defendants) waived their right to a jury trial. After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Jordan of four counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a 14 year-old child at least 10 years younger than he (Pen. Code 288, subd. (c)(1))[1]and one count of inducing a child under the age of 16 to engage in a lewd act ( 266j). The trial court found true the allegation that Jordan had one prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b) (i); 1170.12, subds (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced Jordan to a 16-year term in state prison, consisting of the upper term of 8 years on his conviction under 266j, doubled for his prior strike conviction. Jordan was sentenced to concurrent 2 year terms, the mid term, on each of his convictions under 288, subdivision (c)(1). For the reasons stated below, Court affirm.

Fritz Steven Schacknies appeals from his conviction of two counts of corporal injury to a cohabitant and one count of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury. He challenges the fines imposed at sentencing. Court reverse a $400 fine imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.097. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant, Andrew Arrue, appeals from his convictions for: first degree murder while an active participant in a robbery (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17)); attempted first degree robbery ( 211, 664); and, two counts of firearm assault. ( 245, subd, (a)(2).) The jurors also found a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of the murder, attempted robbery, and firearm assaults. Further, the jury found defendant acted in concert with two or more persons in the commission of the attempted robbery within an inhabited dwelling. ( 213, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Finally, the trial court found defendant was previously convicted of a serious felony. ( 667, subd. (a)(1), (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12.) Defendant argues: the trial court improperly admitted his statements to police; there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was a major participant in the robbery; and there was no substantial evidence he acted with reckless indifference to human life. The Attorney General argues that a state court construction penalty and additional court security fees should have been imposed by the trial court. Court affirm as modified.

Plaintiffs, the widow and children of Julio Olvera (decedent), appeal the dismissal of their complaint against the defendant County of Los Angeles for negligent mishandling of a corpse and negligent supervision of its employees. Plaintiffs alleged that the County Coroner's office failed to preserve and/or protect the decedent's body from decay as mandated by Health and Safety Code sections 7100 et seq. The trial court found that the cited statutes do not create the mandatory duty alleged by plaintiffs, and so sustained the County's demurrer to the complaint. In addition to appealing that ruling, plaintiffs request leave to amend their complaint to state a cause of action against the County for violation of their due process rights under 42 United States Code section 1983. Court affirm the judgment and deny plaintiffs' request for leave to amend.

A.F. (Mother) seeks an extraordinary writ to set aside an order of the San Francisco City and County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, which sustained supplemental petitions filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 387, denied further reunification services, and set a hearing under section 366.26 to select permanent plans for her children Carlos F. (born January 2001) and Lorenzo F. (born November 2003). As discussed post, Court find no merit in Mothers claims of error and deny her petition on the merits.

Steve Grinter purports to appeal from the action of the trial court releasing funds, which Respondent/Appellant assert(s) was improperly levied on or about May 11th, 2006. Because Grinter fails to identify any legally cognizable error in the trial courts orders entered in this proceeding relating to the enforcement of an out of state child support award, Court dismiss the appeal.

Defendant and appellant Brandon Wilson (defendant) and another African-American man approached a group of people who had gathered in the street outside a party. Defendant was asked to leave but refused, and instead engaged in a physical altercation with some of the women in the group. When the male victim attempted to intervene on the womens behalf, defendant shot him four times and then fled the scene, firing at least two more times at the partygoers pursing him. Court hold that defendant has forfeited the identification issue by failing to object to the identification evidence at trial, that defendants ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable on appeal, and that the trial court did not err in imposing the upper term sentences on Counts 1 and 3. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Anthony King was convicted of six counts of second degree robbery involving the personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code,[1] 211, 12022.53, subd. (b)) and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)(1).) On appeal, he argues that insufficient evidence supports the robbery convictions and that fingerprint evidence should have been suppressed. The Attorney General argues that the matter should be remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to impose all mandatory sentence enhancements. Court affirm the convictions and remand with directions to the trial court to impose an additional five year sentence enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1).

The parties to this appeal are organizations and an individual associated with Jodo Shu, a Buddhist sect. Plaintiff, Jodo Shu Betsuin, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants, Jodoshu North America Buddhist Missions (defendant) and Bishop Masahiko Asatani. Plaintiff is or was a Buddhist temple. Defendant is an umbrella organization that oversees Jodo Shu operations in North America. Bishop Asatani is an officer and bishop of defendant and a former member of plaintiffs board of trustees. Both plaintiff and defendant are California non-profit religious corporations. (Corp. Code, 9110 et seq.) Plaintiff was expelled from the Jodo Shu organization. The expulsion resulted from a dispute involving the religious leadership of plaintiffs temple. Defendant barred plaintiff from use of temple property. Plaintiff sought to recover as damages its financial and personal property investments in the construction and operation of the temple building. The trial court found the dispute between plaintiff and defendants is a religious disagreement over which the civil courts have no jurisdiction. The trial court entered a summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed. Court reverse the summary judgment, but direct entry of an order granting summary adjudication of the first cause of action for wrongful eviction.

Alfonso S., the father of Amaya R., appeals from the juvenile courts orders made pursuant to a subsequent petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 342[1]declaring Amaya a dependent child of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), removing Amaya from his custody and placing her with Guadalupe R., her maternal aunt and de facto parent. Alfonso S. argues the facts alleged in support of the section 342 petition fail to adequately plead a basis for dependency court jurisdiction and the evidence presented is insufficient to support either the courts jurisdictional findings as they relate to him or its disposition order removing Amaya from his custody. court reverse.

Rosalba M., mother of Teresita P., appeals the juvenile courts termination of her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] 366.26) and contends that the juvenile court should have placed Teresita with a different relative. Court affirm.