CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant was convicted by jury trial of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) of his wife, Tarina Campodonica, and the jury found true allegations that defendant had personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing death (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (d)) in the commission of the murder. Defendant was committed to state prison for a term of 40 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of his prior acts, (2) his confrontation rights were violated by the admission of Tarinas prior statements, (3) the trial court prejudicially erred in commenting that Nicole Campodonica, defendants daughter, who was testifying for the prosecution, was being evasive and hostile, (4) Evidence Code section 1109 is unconstitutional, and (5) the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting hearsay evidence of Tarinas statements. Defendant has also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which Court dispose of by separate order. Court conclude that, although the trial court made some errors, these errors were not prejudicial, and Court affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant pleaded no contest to felony possession for sale of cocaine base and misdemeanor being under the influence of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5, 11550, subd. (a).) Appellant also admitted other allegations relating to prior convictions, including that he had one prior strike conviction. This plea was made with the understanding that appellant would make a motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and that the maximum sentence that could be imposed would be 12 years in state prison. Appellant was advised, "At sentencing the Court impose a fine to the state restitution fund of a minimum of $200 to a maximum of $10,000 based on your ability to pay." Appellant acknowledged at the time of the plea that there was "no promise that is made regarding [his] sentence, other than it [would] not exceed 12 years in state prison."

Defendant Carlos Torres was convicted after jury trial of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant with a specified prior (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (e)(1)),[1]possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351), cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11358), and two counts of attempting to dissuade a victim or witness ( 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court found true an allegation that defendant had a prior conviction for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11370, subd. (a), 11370.2), and sentenced him to 12 years in state prison.
On appeal defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction on one of the attempting to dissuade a witness counts, and that the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of his prior conviction for sale of a controlled substance to prove his intent to sell in the present case. Court disagree with defendants contentions and, therefore, affirm the judgment.

On March 14, 2006, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant Lionel M. committed two counts of indecent exposure, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 314, subd. 1).[1] After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition as to one count and dismissed the second count. Appellant was adjudged a ward of the court and returned to the custody of his parents. He was ordered to participate in counseling and to have no contact with the victims. On appeal, appellant contends (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that he violated section 314 because there is no evidence of lewd intent, and (2) there is insufficient evidence to establish that he understood the wrongfulness of his conduct. Court affirm the order.

This appeal arises from a dispute between an insurer and its insured, a car dealership and garage. The issue is whether the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the insured for its liability arising from a car accident caused by an employee driving a rental car he rented from a related car rental business. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Court affirm on the basis that there is no coverage under the policy.

Defendant Corey Elder appeals from the sentence imposed following his conviction by a jury of various offenses. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing two five-year sentence enhancements for two prior convictions because there was insufficient evidence that the charges were brought separately. He also contends that the trial court erred in imposing four one-year sentence enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Court conclude that both contentions have merit and remand for resentencing or, at the prosecutions election, redetermination of whether the two Solano County prior convictions arose from charges brought separately. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

David E. Pope (Pope) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two criminal offenses and the court sentenced him to consecutive terms. (Pen. Code, 667.6, subd. (d).) He contends that the imposition of consecutive sentences, without a relevant factual finding by the jury, violates his constitutional rights under Cunningham v. California (2007) 127 S.Ct. 856 (Cunningham).) He also contends the trial courts findings were insufficient for purposes of section 667.6, subdivision (d). Court affirm the judgment.

Susan Rosalyn Caporale (Caporale) appeals from a judgment entered after she pled no contest. Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. Court find no arguable issue and affirm.

A. M., born in November 2005, was made a dependent of the Contra Costa Juvenile Court in October 2006. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300.)[1] Pursuant to rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court, his mother, Darla R. (petitioner), has filed a petition for extraordinary writ review of an order setting a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan pursuant to section 366.26 (hereafter .26 hearing). She contends reasonable services were not provided to her as a developmentally delayed parent and Contra Costa County Bureau of Children and Family Services (Bureau) did not establish that return of A. M. to her would create a substantial risk of harm to him. The petition is denied on the merits.

Appellant Amara Vadillo was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder. The jury also found that appellant had personally used a firearm, proximately causing great bodily injury and death. Appellant was sentenced to a term of 20 years to life for the murder and to a consecutive term of 25 years to life on the enhancements. The court imposed restitution and parole revocation fines, staying the latter, and gave appellant 499 days of presentence custody credit. Court affirm the conviction.

Plaintiff Motors Insurance Company (Motors Insurance) paid approximately $479,000 in policy benefits to its insured, Cormier Chevrolet, and then in the present subrogation action sued defendants BP West Coast Products, LLC, and Atlantic Richfield Company (collectively, BP) for damages sustained to the paint finish of vehicles owned by Cormier Chevrolet. Motors Insurance alleged that flaring events from the smokestacks at a BP petroleum refinery located near Cormier Chevrolet resulted in waste products which mixed with moisture in the air, fell as acid rain on Cormier Chevrolet vehicles, and damaged the clear coat finish on the vehicles. The judgment is affirmed.

Frederick Chandler entered a negotiated plea of guilty to grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was sentenced to 32 months in prison. He obtained a certificate of probable cause and appeals from the judgment.
Appellant contends that (1) his decision to represent himself was invalid, resulting in a denial of the right to counsel, because the trial court failed to properly ascertain whether he knowingly and intelligently elected self-representation; (2) he established good cause for the withdrawal of his guilty plea; and (3) remand is required so that he may be present at a renewed motion to withdraw his plea.
Court reject the claim that this appeal must be dismissed. Court reverse, finding prejudicial error in the failure to advise appellant of the risks and disadvantages of self representation.

This appeal concerns the Willed Body Program (WBP) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The parties are litigating UCLAs alleged mishandling of WBP donor remains after completion of medical study and research. Appellant Robert Bennett, Jr., is the son of a decedent who donated her remains to the WBP. Bennett challenges on appeal the trial courts judgment in favor of UCLA. Court affirm.

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that appellant Shawn S. recklessly caused fire to the property of another in violation of Penal Code section 452, subdivision (d), a misdemeanor. The court found that appellant was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, adjudged appellant to be a ward of the court, and placed him on home probation for a period not to exceed six months. Appellant appeals from the orders sustaining the petition and adjudging him to be a ward of the court, contending that counsel was ineffective in failing to make a motion to dismiss and further contending that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that he recklessly caused fire to the property of another. Court affirm the trial court's orders.