CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant stands accused of murder for a decade-old crime. His prosecution has been delayed because he suffers from mental illness and has on numerous occasions been found incompetent to stand trial. Although antipsychotic medication has proven effective in terms of restoring his competency, he has been reluctant to medicate on his own. Because of this, the prosecution obtained an order allowing the forcible administration of antipsychotic drugs to appellant. Appellant challenges the order, contending it is procedurally flawed and lacks evidentiary support. Court find no basis for reversal and therefore affirm the order.

Appellant Hung Kha was convicted of felony false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of kidnapping for robbery, and simple assault as a lesser included offense of assault with a firearm. The jury acquitted him of conspiring to commit robbery and possessing a firearm while a felon, and it found not true allegations he personally used a firearm and inflicted great bodily injury. The court sentenced him to the upper term of three years on the false imprisonment count and six months for the assault. He now contends the court erred in failing to instruct on misdemeanor false imprisonment and the defense of accident. He also impugns the courts self defense instructions and claims imposition of the upper term violated his right to a jury trial. Finding no basis for reversal, Court affirm the judgment.

Jason Allen Clark appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of aggravated assault and found true the allegation he personally inflicted great bodily injury. Clark argues there were evidentiary and instructional errors. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant Gi Jeon Moon on appeal. Counsel filed a brief setting forth a statement of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. Court provided defendant 30 days to file written argument in his appeal. He has filed a letter, translated from the Korean language, asserting various grievances. Court have examined the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Finally, defendant asserts he has learned that one cannot be punished doubly based on two charges from one case. He suffered only one conviction and one punishment. Court have found no other arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. (Chaparral) successfully moved to quash service of a complaint filed by Lloyd G. Copenbarger, Jr., and Paul D. Copenbarger, cotrustees of the Copenbarger Trust (the trust) in a dispute involving an Oklahoma oil well. The court agreed with Chaparral that it lacked the requisite minimum contacts to sustain California jurisdiction. The trust argues that such contacts exist, or alternatively, that it should have been granted a continuance to conduct discovery on the issue. Court disagree and affirm.

A modification decision.

Gregory J. Barnett appeals from a summary judgment entered in his premises liability and negligence action in favor of Southern California Edison Company (Edison). Barnett claimed he suffered horrendous injuries when he was bitten by a spider while he was standing in Edisons six-foot wide easement which runs along the length of his backyard. Barnett asserts the court erred in not finding Edison, as the exclusive owner and beneficiary of the dominant tenement portion of the easement, had an affirmative duty to maintain the property in a safe condition and in good repair. Court conclude summary judgment was properly entered because Barnett failed to present evidence to rebut Edisons claim (and evidence) it merely owned a nonexclusive easement with limited control and rights over Barnetts property. Because there is no evidence in the record or legal reason to hold Edison had a duty to exterminate insects in Barnetts backyard, Court affirm the judgment.

James F. Jones sought to bring an action for tortious interference with inheritance and inter vivos gift against Cheryl Welchner. She allegedly interfered with gifts that her father Colonel Carl Welchner sought to make, before his death, to Jones who had befriended him. According to the complaint, Colonel Welchner intended to give appellant a 49 percent interest in a Carmel property held in trust and the money held in two bank accounts to facilitate the purchase of the remaining interest in that Carmel property. It alleged that Colonel Welcher suffered a stroke and was hospitalized and then admitted to Monterey Hospice. It further alleged on information and belief that Colonel Welchner was taken "against his wishes to Santa Barbara" and placed in an institution. The complaint averred that Cheryl Welchner isolated her father, "beset[] him verbally, coerced him to sign a document or documents prepared by an attorney at her direction, [and ]. . . caused the inheritance promised Plaintiff not to occur." It also averred that Cheryl Welchner "willfully interfered with her father's gift to Plaintiff by exerting undue influence, and duress on her father, and through fraud and misrepresentation."
The judgment is affirmed.

A modification decision.

Defendants David Calderon and Salvador Estrada appeal their convictions for various crimes including attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon following a fight in which the victim was severely beaten and left with permanent physical and mental disabilities. Evidence was presented that the assault was spurred by rivalry between Norteo and Sureo gang members. Both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a sentence enhancement under the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, Penal Code section 186.20 et seq. (sometimes the gang enhancement) and the denial of their new trial motions based on juror misconduct. Estrada also challenges imposition of the upper term for attempted voluntary manslaughter. Court find no error and affirm.

On remand following a successful appeal from his 2001 second degree murder conviction, defendant pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter in 2006 and received a sentence of 16 years as part of a negotiated disposition. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $3,200 and assessed a court security fee of $20 on defendant. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) increasing the restitution fine over the $200 amount that had been imposed after his 2001 conviction, and (2) assessing a court security fee under a statute enacted after defendant committed his offense. Court agree that the restitution fine was improperly increased, and modify the judgment accordingly. Court find no error in the application of the court security fee statute to defendants 2006 conviction.

Defendant Michael Eric Dieters appeals from a judgment imposing the upper term upon his plea of nolo contendere to the charge of assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a). Upon the entry of his plea, numerous additional counts were dismissed. The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years, as it had previously advised him would be the maximum period of commitment, and suspended execution of the sentence and placed defendant on three years probation. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence and also the validity of his plea. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied and he therefore makes no contention with respect to the latter issue. Court agree with defendants implicit recognition that this court is bound by the decision in Black II, and that the sentence in this case was imposed in accordance with the standards approved in that case. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant Benjyman Anthony Hollomon of two counts of possessing cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5.) The court found that defendant had a prior conviction for the same offense and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of eight years and four months. (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a).) At trial before the jury, the court admitted evidence of that prior conviction for the limited purpose of determining whether defendant acted with the intent to sell cocaine in this case, or knew the substances nature or character as a controlled substance. (Evid. Code, 1101, subd. (b).) Defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion in allowing any admission of the prior conviction because the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. (Evid. Code, 352.) Court reject the claim and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Citi Properties I DE, LLC (Citi) appeals from the denial of its special motion to strike plaintiff Kelly Hamess complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). Although the trial courts order does not state the grounds for denying the motion, the tentative ruling to which it adhered indicated that the court did not consider Hamess complaint to be based on protected activity, and that even if it were, Hames made a prima facie showing that she would prevail in the action. Court disagree with both conclusions and shall reverse.