CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants, Chinese Overseas Marketing Service Corporation (Overseas Marketing), and Alan Kao, appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Chinese Yellow Pages, Inc. and Chinese Yellow Pages, LP, doing business as Chinese Yellow Pages, following a jury trial. Court reverse the judgment insofar as it finds defendants committed a contract breach. But Court affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Defendant, Keyana Bryan, appeals from her convictions for two counts of stalking. (Pen. Code, 646.9, subd. (a).) Although defendant was convicted of felony stalking, the trial court subsequently reduced count 1 to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b)(5). Defendant argues the trial court improperly admitted evidence of a defense witnesss expunged aggravated assault conviction. The Attorney General argues court construction penalties and court security fees should have been imposed. Court affirm with modifications.

Appellant Christopher Hernandez challenges his second degree robbery conviction on the ground the trial court improperly admitted evidence regarding a gun he was carrying when he was arrested. Court conclude evidence of the gun was properly admitted because the gun could have been the one used in committing the robbery.

Charles Gardner sued PFL Life Insurance Company, the California Department of Insurance, Mega Life and Health Insurance Company, Healthmarkets, Inc.,[1]Transamerica Life Insurance Company, the National Association for the Self-Employed ("NASE"), and various individuals alleged to have been involved or associated with NASE or with one of the insurance companies named as defendants. On appeal, he contends that PFL and the Department of Insurance were wrongly dismissed, and that the court erred in granting Mega Life and Healthmarkets' and the NASE's special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, in denying reconsideration of the ruling, and in awarding fees under the statute. Court affirm.

Damon Lamont Williams appeals from a judgment entered after conviction following his 1993 negotiated guilty plea to second degree robbery. In accordance with the plea agreement, appellant was sentenced to three years in prison. His sentence was suspended, and he was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). According to a 1999 letter from the CRC to the trial court, appellant was released and returned three times before he was excluded from the program due to a new felony conviction in Los Angeles Superior Court Case number SA033279, for which he received a prison sentence. The trial court failed to act promptly upon the letter as it should have under Welfare & Institutions Code section 3053, subdivision (b).
Court have examined the entire record and appellants contentions, and have not found any arguable issues. (Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

Johnny Earl Hammond bought a car and financed it through WFS Financial, Inc. When Hammond failed to insure the car, WFS purchased insurance and sought reimbursement from Hammond. Hammond responded with a lawsuit against WFS but lost, and the case is now before us on Hammonds appeal from a judgment in favor of WFS. Court affirm.

Defendant, Eric Latte Moultrie, appeals from his convictions for two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury upon a peace officer (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (c)) and two counts of resisting by the use of force or violence on an executive officer. ( 69.) Defendant admitted that he was previously convicted of a serious felony. Defendant argues the trial court improperly instructed the jury with CALJIC rather than CALCRIM instructions and improperly imposed the upper term as to count 1. The Attorney General argues the trial court should have imposed additional mandatory court security fees and state court construction penalties. Also, the Attorney General contends the abstract of judgment should be corrected to accurately reflect the sentence imposed by the trial court. Court affirm with modifications.

A father appeals from the dependency courts order denying a petition for modification in which he sought unmonitored visits with his daughter, Angie M., and from the subsequent order terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388, 366.26.) Court affirm.

Darlene B. (mother), mother of three-year-old Brian H., appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights to Brian under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Mother contends the juvenile court denied her due process when it erroneously denied her request for a contested hearing on the visitation exception to the termination of her parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) (section 366.26(c)(1)(A)). Mother also contends that even in the absence of such a hearing, the evidence demonstrates that she satisfied the section 366.26(c)(1)(A) exception. Court affirm.

Defendant Clarence Joseph Hayes was convicted after a jury trial of burglary (count one), two counts of rape (counts two and five), penetration by foreign object (count three), forcible oral copulation (count four), and robbery (count six). The jury also found he had committed the rapes during the commission of a burglary and that he bound or tied the victim during the forcible oral copulation. The trial court found true a prior strike conviction for rape in 1988.
In an earlier appeal, Court reversed the trial courts finding that a prior 1982 conviction for robbery constituted a strike based on insufficiency of evidence and remanded for retrial on the strike. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. (People v. Hayes (July 1, 2002, C032730) [nonpub. opn.].) The prosecution elected not to retry the strike on remand and defendant was resentenced.

A jury found defendant Larry Tyrone Ford guilty of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5; further statutory references are to the Penal Code), first degree burglary ( 459, 460), assault on Jami Buntun with a semiautomatic firearm ( 245, subd. (b)), assault on Chambreya Blanson with a semiautomatic firearm (id.), possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5), and being a felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found defendant not guilty of possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359), but guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor (id., 11357, subd. (b)). The jury also found true allegations defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the robbery ( 12022.53, subd. (b)), burglary ( 12022.5, subd. (a)), and assaults ( 12022.5, subds. (a) and (d)), and was personally armed with a firearm when he possessed the cocaine base for sale ( 12022, subd. (c)).
The trial court denied defendants motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.
Defendant appeals, contending (1) insufficient evidence supports his conviction for assault on Blanson with a semiautomatic firearm, and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. Court affirm the judgment.

This lawsuit pits mother against daughter in a dispute over the distribution of property from a living trust created by Lisette Keane, their mother and grandmother, respectively.
In the underlying litigation, Paulette Purdue (Paulette) challenged the validity of her mother Lisettes 2005 amendment to an inter vivos trust, and sought to remove her daughter Nicole Purdue Norris (Nicole) as trustee of Lisettes trust on the grounds (among others) that Lisette was incompetent at the time of the 2005 amendment and Nicole had exerted undue influence over her. Paulette sought to reinstate a 2004 version of the trust in which Paulette, not Nicole, would have been trustee after Lisettes death. However, the court found Lisette was competent at the time of her 2005 trust amendment, and that Nicole did not exert undue influence over her.
This judgment roll appeal by Nicole, concerns the trial courts additional finding that although the evidence adduced at trial ultimately failed to support her Paulette had probable cause to bring the petition and therefore is not foreclosed from benefiting by the no contest clause in the operative trust document. (Prob. Code, 21307.) Nicole challenges the courts finding that the no contest clause may not be enforced against Paulette. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Herman Jerome Johnson and David Turan Johnson of felonies and the trial court sent them to prison. On appeal, they make three contentions: 1) the trial court improperly denied a motion for a continuance; 2) the trial court mishandled their motion claiming the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a racially biased manner; and 3) the prosecutor committed misconduct. Court reject all three contentions and affirm the judgments.

A jury convicted defendant Pablo China Valle of six counts of lewd conduct upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a); undesignated section references are to this code) and two counts of kidnapping for the purpose of child molestation ( 207, subd. (b)). In connection with the lewd counts, the jury found that defendant kidnapped the victim, increasing the risk inherent in the underlying offense ( 667.61, subd. (d)(2)). For purposes of sentencing, the jury found in aggravation: the victim was particularly vulnerable and the manner in which defendant carried out the offenses indicated planning or sophistication. In bifurcated proceedings, the jury found not true the aggravating factor that defendant engaged in violent conduct, to wit, sodomy, indicating a serious danger to society.
Sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 41 years to life, defendant appeals, contending (1) the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on the aggravating factor that the manner in which defendant carried out the offenses indicated planning or sophistication and (2) the imposition of the upper term and consecutive sentences contravenes Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely). Court affirm the judgment.