CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant Melvin Todd Burk guilty of possession of a controlled substance, transportation of a controlled substance, and carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. The court dismissed the possession conviction since it was necessarily included within the transportation conviction. The court also found that defendant had two prior felony burglary convictions.
The court sentenced defendant to two concurrent 25 years to life terms in prison. He appeals, claiming: (1) there was insufficient evidence that he possessed a dirk or dagger; and (2) the sentence of 25 years to life for his convictions violates the cruel and unusual punishment ban under federal and state law.
Disagreeing with these contentions, Court affirm the judgment.

At a probation revocation hearing the trial court found that defendant Raymond Anthony Rowell violated the terms of his probation by failing to notify his probation officer of his change of address. As a consequence, the court revoked defendants probation and imposed a two year prison sentence.
Defendant appeals the revocation of his probation contending, inter alia, that the court should not have considered several hearsay statements contained in the Probation Officers Report Violation Of Probation And/Or Informational (the violation of probation report) because these statements took the place of live testimony. Defendant contends that by replacing live testimony with these hearsay statements, the court violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process because he did not have the opportunity to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses. Because we agree that the trial court erred by allowing several statements in the violation of probation report to take the place of live testimony, Court reverse the judgment.

J. Alvarez Construction, Inc. (Alvarez), a framing contractor, entered into an agreement with Western National Group, L.P. (Western National), a general contractor, to assist in the construction of an apartment complex. After the parties had various disputes regarding Alvarez's and Western National's respective obligations under the agreement, Alvarez recorded a mechanics' lien on the property on which the apartment complex was being built. Shortly thereafter, Western National terminated Alvarez and ordered Alvarez off the job site. Western National subsequently recorded a "release bond" pursuant to Civil Code section 3143 for the purpose of releasing the property from the lien. Alvarez later recorded an additional mechanics' lien on the property.

Alvarez brought claims against Western National that included breach of contract, quantum meruit, and foreclosure on the mechanics' liens. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Alvarez on all of its claims and entered a judgment awarding Alvarez damages in the amount of $637,344.99, and interest in the amount of $257,731.79. The judgment also states that Alvarez "has a mechanics' lien" on the property in the amount of $539,337.99. The trial court entered a postjudgment order awarding Alvarez costs in the amount of $30,843.64.
On appeal, Western National raises a number of claims of error concerning liability, damages, prejudgment interest, and costs. We affirm the trial court's finding of liability with respect to Alvarez's breach of contract claim. We conclude that we need not consider Western National's contention that the court erred in finding Western National liable on Alvarez's quantum meruit claim in light of our disposition of the other claims Western National raises in this appeal. Court reverse the judgment on Alvarez's mechanics' lien claim and remand with directions that the trial court conduct further proceedings regarding the release bond that Western National executed.
With respect to damages, Court conclude that the trial court improperly awarded damages for delayed performance ($93,672), unsubstantiated lost profits ($42,737), and unsigned change orders ($8,199.15), and that the damage award must therefore be reduced by $144,608.15, to $492,736.84. Similarly, if the court determines on remand that Alvarez is entitled to recover on the release bond, any subsequent judgment on the bond must also be reduced by $101,871.15, to $437,466.84, for amounts improperly awarded for delayed performance ($93,672), and unsigned change orders ($8,199.15).
The trial court must recalculate the award of prejudgment interest on remand, to correspond with our reduction of the damages. In recalculating prejudgment interest, the trial court must toll the accrual of prejudgment interest for the period during which the case was stayed pursuant to Alvarez's motion for a stay. Finally, because the trial court erred in awarding nonstatutory costs in a postjudgment proceeding, the cost award must be reduced by $18,073.64.

Plaintiff Gregory Dorsett, doing business as Rock Stars Guitars (Dorsett), appeals a judgment entered in favor of defendant Experience Hendrix, LLC (Company) after the trial court granted Company's motion for a nonsuit judgment in his defamation action against it. Dorsett contends the trial court erred by: (1) denying his request for a statement of decision; (2) granting Company's motion in limine to exclude testimony by his expert witness on the authenticity and value of the item of personal property in issue; (3) granting Company's motion for a nonsuit after his opening statement; and (4) denying his motion for summary adjudication. Court reversed and remanded with directions.

A jury convicted Charles Ven Lo of unlawfully driving under the influence of alcohol and causing great bodily injury, driving with a measurable blood alcohol level of 0.08 or above and causing great bodily injury, and failing to appear in court while free on his own recognizance. He appeals, contending the trial court erred in failing to grant probation or impose the lower prison term. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Andrew Logan appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance. Logan contends that police officers obtained certain evidence against him as a result of an unlawful search and seizure, and that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence.
Logan raises two grounds for reversal of his conviction. First, Logan asserts that police officers seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the seizure occurred without a warrant, and was not based on reasonable suspicion. Second, Logan contends that the manner in which police officers searched and seized him after they learned of his status as a parolee demonstrates that the search and seizure were arbitrary and capricious, and were undertaken for the purpose of harassment and/or for other improper purposes.
Court conclude that the trial court's findings, which are supported by substantial evidence, establish that police officers did not seize and/or search Logan until after they learned that he was on parole. The seizure and search thus were not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Further, there is no basis for concluding that the officers acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or for some improper purpose when they detained and searched Logan after they learned that he was a parolee. Court therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.

Plaintiff Karen Busch appeals a postjudgment order awarding her attorney fees in the amount of $1,000 under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 after the trial court granted Busch's petition for a civil harassment injunction against defendant Lori Bradburn. Busch had requested $17,363.75 in attorney fees. She contends the court abused its discretion by: (1) failing to base its decision on the lodestar adjustment method; (2) basing the award on erroneous public policy considerations; (3) erroneously intertwining the analysis of prevailing party with the calculation of reasonable attorney fees; and (4) limiting the award of attorney fees to the retainer she paid her attorney. Court affirm the order.

Richard M. appeals the findings and orders entered at a hearing on a supplemental petition held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 387. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting his custody of a child or his status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny his requests to review the record for error and to address his Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Richard M.'s counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.

This case involves a home invasion robbery that was thwarted before the defendants entered the home. Having been caught in the act, the defendants attempted to escape from the long arm of the law. Unable to escape, the defendants, Toan Quoc Van (Van), Khoi Van Phan (Phan), Nelson Wynn (Wynn), and Giang Huynh (Huynh) were charged, tried and convicted. They now appeal.
The judgment is conditionally reversed.

A jury convicted defendant of inflicting corporal injury on his spouse. ( 273.5, subd. (a).) The jury also found defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. ( 12022.7, subd. (a).) The court sentenced defendant to five years in prison.
Defendant urges the court committed error during voir dire and there was instructional error. On a related appellate claim and in a petition for writ of habeas corpus consolidated with the appeal, defendant maintains he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment and deny the writ petition.

A jury convicted defendant Charles William Windham of one count of failing to inform law enforcement of his change of address, as required by the sex offender registration statute, and two counts of failing to register as a sex offender. The jury found true the allegation that defendant had previously been convicted of four strike offenses. The trial court sentenced defendant to three consecutive sentences of 25 years to life for a total of 75 years to life.
Defendant raises several errors on appeal. He contends that the accusatory pleading failed to give him notice of the offenses. Court conclude that the information comported with due process in that it gave sufficient notice of the charges. Defendant also asserts the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it must find he had actual knowledge of the registration requirements. We agree with defendants claim that the trial court failed to instruct on actual knowledge. However, we find the error was harmless. Finally, defendant complains that sentencing him to three consecutive life terms violates the dual use prohibition as there was only one continuing violation of his failure to inform law enforcement of his change of address. Court conclude that imposing a sentence for each count of failing to register did not violate Penal Code section 654.

Defendant Robert Hayden Nesbitt appeals from the denial of his motion pursuant People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), to strike all six of his prior strike convictions for purposes of the Three Strikes law. He contends that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of a 1991 juvenile probation report that contradicted his claim of childhood physical and psychological abuse. Court affirm the judgment, finding that defendant waived his claim of error and that, in any event, the trial court did not in fact rely on the contents of the report or abuse its discretion in denying his motion.

Defendant, a minor, appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders entered after the juvenile court found defendant had committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, 242) and grand theft from the person of another ( 487, subd. (c)). Court affirm.

Appellant Ricardo Guevara was convicted in 2004 of various crimes arising from his threats to and assaults on his girlfriend Olivia H. He appealed from that judgment of conviction, contending, inter alia, that the admission of a tape and transcript of a 911 call concerning his stabbing of Olivia violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution, as set forth in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 ("Crawford."). Court found no error in the admission of the 911 call and affirmed the judgment of conviction. The California Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for review of his Crawford claim. The United States Supreme Court granted appellant's petition for writ of certiorari, then remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of Davis v. Washington (2006) 547 U.S. [126 S.Ct. 2266] ("Davis").
Court reconsider appellant's claim that the 911 call violated his right to confrontation and find no reversible error. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.