CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Doralisa Salazar (Salazar) appeals from a judgment awarding her nearly $1,500 for injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Salazar contends the trial court erred when it denied her motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, misconduct of defense counsel during closing argument, and inadequate damages. As Court explain, Court agree that defense counsel committed misconduct during closing argument, and that such misconduct resulted in prejudice. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment.

Michael Patton challenges not only the denials of his two motions to quash search warrants and suppress evidence but also the imposition of an aggravated term without jury findings on circumstances in aggravation and the calculation of his presentence custody credit. The Attorney General contests both search issues and the aggravated term issue but agrees with Patton on the presentence custody credit issue. Court concur with the parties on the presentence custody credit issue and remand for a new sentencing hearing on the aggravated term issue but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff was injured while operating a forklift manufactured by defendant Toyota Industrial Equipment Manufacturing, Inc. (Toyota). A forklift tire split, toppling the forklift. Plaintiff landed on the warehouse floor, and the forklift came down on his leg. Plaintiffs leg was crushed and later amputated below the knee. Plaintiff sued Toyota for a defective forklift design that placed excessive force on the vehicles tires. After a month-long trial, the jury found Toyota liable for defective design of the forklift on the legal theory of strict products liability. The trial court entered judgment on the jurys verdict, assessing damages of $1.8 million against Toyota.
Court conclude that Toyota forfeited its claim concerning the burden of proving a safer alternative design by failing to raise it in the trial court. The claim is also unsupported by California law, which tasks the manufacturer with proving that the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risks. We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the jurys verdict, and that there was no juror misconduct. Workers compensation principles referenced during deliberations were not derived from improper extraneous sources, but from courtroom proceedings and common knowledge.

Karen Schermerhorn appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained demurrers and dismissed her complaint alleging a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act (hereafter the WPA, Gov. Code, 8547 et seq.). She contends the trial court interpreted the WPA and other statutes incorrectly. Court disagree and affirm.

The minor challenges the juvenile courts sustaining of an allegation of receipt of stolen property in a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for receipt of stolen property. (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)count 1.) Because we agree that there was insufficient evidence that the minor possessed stolen property, Court reverse the order sustaining the allegation.

Counsel appointed for defendant has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he elected not to do so; he did file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which Court deny by separate order. Court have conducted that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

Minatta Transportation Company (Minatta) and its workers compensation insurer, St. Paul Travelers, petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). There being no facts or circumstances to distinguish the instant case from Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 148 (Costco), Court follow that decision and annul the award of permanent disability indemnity to respondent Paul D. Lanning, and remand the matter for recalculation of that award.

Defendant appeals from judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of three counts of kidnapping for carjacking, counts 1, 7 and 8 (Pen. Code, 209.5, subd. (a)), three counts of kidnapping to commit robbery, counts 2, 9 and 10 (Pen. Code, 209, subd. (b)(1)), two counts of second degree robbery, counts 4 and 5 (Pen. Code, 211) and one count of misdemeanor sexual battery, count 6 (Pen. Code, 243.4, subd. (e)(1)). On counts 1 and 7, he was sentenced to two consecutive prison terms of life with the possibility of parole. Sentence on the remaining counts was either stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654 or ordered to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in counts 1 and 7. He contends the trial court erred when it sentenced him on counts 1 and 7 to consecutive terms based on facts not found by the jury, violating his federal constitutional rights to due process and trial by jury. For reasons explained in the opinion, Court affirm the judgment and order the abstract of judgment corrected to reflect the proper sentence.

Upon initial evaluation of this petition, the court concluded the petition had apparent merit and requested a preliminary response from the People. After reviewing the preliminary response filed by the People, which concedes that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a certificate of probable cause concerning the trial courts denial of her request for drug-treatment probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1, this court issued a Notice of Intention to Grant Peremptory Writ in the First Instance. The Notice specified the ground upon which the court intended to grant writ relief.

A jury convicted defendant Angela Alvarado of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1) count one) and manufacture of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379.6, subd. (a) count three). On each count, the jury found true an allegation that the substance containing methamphetamine exceeded 25 gallons of liquid. (Health & Saf. Code, 11379.8, subd. (a)(3).) In November 2003, defendant was sentenced to state prison for two concurrent terms of 13 years, consisting of the low terms of three years for each offense plus 10 years for each volume enhancement.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by (1) failing to obtain an updated probation report; (2) refusing to calculate her credits for the period between the two sentencing hearings; and (3) failing to strike the drug volume enhancement on the ground of disproportionate punishment. Court modify the judgment.

Mercer claims that the above trial court's errors require this court to reverse the judgment with directions to grant his petition to confirm the arbitration award. As we explain, on de novo review of the record, we conclude the trial court erred in applying the appropriate legal tests to vacate the arbitration award, and it should have granted Mercer's petition to confirm that award. Accordingly, Court reverse with directions.

On June 6, 2004, appellant Pedro Ramirez Calixio fatally stabbed Luis Fernando Carrillo. Appellant was convicted after jury trial of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense to the charged crime of murder; the jury found true a special allegation that he personally used a knife in the commission of the homicide. (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Appellant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, calculated as the upper term of 11 years for manslaughter plus a consecutive one-year term for the weapon use enhancement.
Appellant argues that the court prejudicially erred by admitting a prior spousal battery conviction as impeachment evidence. He also raises a Blakely challenge to judicial selection of the upper term. Our original opinion in this matter was filed prior to issuance of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham).) Therein, we rejected both of appellants arguments and affirmed. Our Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Cunningham. Court have determined that prejudicial sentencing error occurred.

In Court's original opinion in this matter filed March 28, 2007, we reversed a judgment in favor of Davis against Robert Bosch Corporation. Davis petitioned for a rehearing contending that the judgment should be affirmed because Court had erroneously concluded that Robert Bosch Corporation had filed a timely notice of appeal. Court granted re hearing, vacated our decision, and requested briefing. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties, Court have determined, for a reason different than the one stated in the original opinion, that Robert Bosch Corporation's notice of appeal was timely. Thus, there is no change in the judgment in this restated opinion.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant Jose Jimenez pleaded no contest to a charge of felony evasion of a police officer and was sentenced to the upper term of three years in state prison. The court suspended execution of the sentence, however, and granted probation. Seven and a half months later, defendant was charged with resisting arrest in an unrelated incident, leading to a court finding that defendant had violated the terms of his probation and the revocation of probation. Rather than reinstate it, the court ordered defendant to serve the three-year prison sentence. On appeal, defendant argues two errors: (1) the evidence did not support the probation violation finding; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in declining to reinstate probation. Court disagree, and affirm.