CA Unpub Decisions

This case comes before us on appeal for a second time, following our remand for resentencing. (People v. Moore (July 26, 2006, B184718) [nonpub. opn.].) Leander C. Moore was charged by information with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count one) and battery causing serious bodily injury (count two) (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), 243, subd. (d)).[1] It was also specially alleged Moore had personally inflicted great bodily injury in committing each offense ( 12022.7, subd. (a)), had suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and had served two separate prison terms for felonies ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial evidence was that Moore and Ezekiel Duran were roommates at a half-way house in Los Angeles. During a heated argument, Moore struck Duran causing him to fall to his knees. Moore continued to hit Duran until Moore was restrained by a counselor. Duran suffered a fractured cheekbone, bruises and cuts that required stitches to close. (People v. Moore, supra, B184718.) The judgment is affirmed.

Yuron Hughing appeals from a post judgment order revoking his probation and executing a previously suspended state prison sentence. Court dismiss the appeal.

Lester Lampkin appeals from a judgment entered following his negotiated plea to stalking (Pen. Code, 646.9, subd. (a)). According to the Probation Officers Report, the victim was at home when Lampkin entered uninvited and began to argue with her. He became verbally abusive, issued various threats, and prevented her from leaving the house. When the victim managed to get to her car, Lampkin climbed into the backseat over her objection. As the victim drove, Lampkin continued his verbal abuse; at one point threatening to kill her if she contacted police. The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner, Ricardo G., seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Court deny the petition.

A jury convicted defendant Kenneth Eugene Warren of car burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)). The trial court sustained allegations of a prior serious felony conviction and a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison.

On appeal, defendant contends the denial of his motion for a continuance was an abuse of discretion; the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of his prior conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 years of age; and his upper term sentence violated the principles of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi). Court reject the contentions and affirm.

In this case alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, 12926 et seq. (FEHA)), plaintiff Catherine Adams appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Sutter North Medical Foundation (Foundation) and Julie Eckardt. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in determining that she failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that no triable issues existed. Court affirm the judgment.

The State Unclaimed Property Law (UPL) (Code Civ. Proc., 1500 et seq.; further undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure) requires holders of certain unclaimed property to transfer possession of it to the State Controller, to be held until restored to the rightful owner. The purposes of the Unclaimed Property Law are to protect unknown owners by locating them and restoring their property and to give the state the benefit of the use of it. (Cory v. Public Utilities Com. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 522, 528.)
Defendants contend the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication as a sanction and granting summary adjudication when TRPs motion sought only summary judgment. Defendants further challenge the breadth of the courts order as well as the legality of the remedies provided in it. Court conclude the trial courts order far exceeded what was at issue on TRPs motion. Court therefore reverse the order.

Plaintiff Victor A. Gonsalves, an attorney appearing in pro per, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants North American Company for Life and Health Insurance (North American) and Sammons Financial Group, Inc. (Sammons), on plaintiffs complaint and North Americans cross-complaint. The parties claims arise from an alleged breach of an agreement between plaintiff and North American whereby plaintiff became an agent in the sale of North Americans insurance products. Defendants assert, and plaintiff disputes, that plaintiff was obligated under the agreement to repay commissions received by plaintiff on the sale of two annuity policies that were canceled prematurely. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel discovery designed to prove North American had not been harmed by premature cancellation of the policies. He further contends issues of fact remain on the various claims asserted by the parties. Court disagree with both contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Cheri Thomas broke into the home of her recently estranged husband. When her 15-year-old stepson, H.T., tried to call police, defendant grabbed the phone, told him not to call, threatened to have him beat up, punched him several times, pushed him into his bedroom and closed the door. When H.T. peaked out, he saw the defendant taking several items of property belonging to H.T.s father, including the telephone so that H.T. could not call for help.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error in favor of defendant.

A jury found defendant James Russell Richardson guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and found true an enhancement that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. The trial court sentenced him to a total of seven years in state prison, which included the four-year upper term for assault. The trial court explained its selection of the upper term as follows: There are a number of circumstances in aggravation. This violent conduct is certainly a serious danger to society. The defendant does have prior convictions as an adult. They are . . . increasing in number and seriousness. He does have a violent history, and plainly his past performance on probation has been unsatisfactory. I dont know of any mitigating circumstances.
Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial courts imposition of the upper term violated his constitutional right to a jury trial. Court disagree.

Tracy W., mother of the minor, appeals from the judgment of disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 358, 360, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to this code].) Appellant contends substantial evidence does not support the facts pleaded in the petition; the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq., were not met; the juvenile court erred in appointing her a guardian ad litem; and the juvenile court further erred in denying her services. Court affirm.

After a jury found defendant Lee Allen Sheldon guilty of felony spousal abuse, the trial court sentenced defendant to 36 months of formal probation and a 90 day jail term. When defendant violated the terms of his probation, the court sentenced him to three years in prison for the spousal abuse conviction. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing a duplicate restitution fine. Finding an error in the abstract of judgment, Court direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Joshua S. and Teresa S., parents of the minors Hailey and Hunter, each appeal from orders of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights and selecting a permanent plan of adoption for the minors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395)[1] Parents contend there was not clear and convincing evidence the children were adoptable, the court erred in failing to find the parents established an exception to adoption, and the court should have continued the matter for 180 days to further assess adoption as a permanent plan. Father also contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Manuel Bulanon filed this action seeking to compel the defendant, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department), to provide a defense and indemnification for any damages in a wrongful death action premised on the death of a prisoner while in his care as a doctor in the defendants employ. The court granted the Departments motion for summary judgment. It found that the plaintiffs waiver of all claims against the Department, which he executed in connection with a settlement of the Departments disciplinary proceedings against him, embraced any claim for defense or indemnification in the wrongful death action that was already pending at the time of the settlement. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal from the notice of entry of judgment. Court affirm.