CA Unpub Decisions

Counsel appointed for defendant Rico Sandefur 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 apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. Court have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting a special motion to strike her complaint. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered following a guilty plea by appellant Cresencio Shawn Zavala to one count of vehicular manslaughter. The trial court sentenced appellant to state prison for the midterm of two years.
After appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief in accordance with procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [People v. Wende], stating the case and facts raise no issue for court's review.

Howard E. Hinman (Hinman) appeals from a judgment confirming two awards in an arbitration in favor of respondent Fujitsu Software Corp. (FSW), and from a post-judgment order awarding FSW contractual attorney fees as the prevailing party in the confirmation proceedings. Hinman contends the arbitration awards should not have been confirmed because: (1) the arbitrator awarded attorney fees to FSW even though, by Hinmans estimation, he was the prevailing party in the arbitration; and (2) the arbitrator imposed liability on Hinman personally. He further contends that the post-judgment order was erroneous, because the trial court awarded FSW attorney fees in the confirmation proceedings, in addition to what the arbitrator had awarded with respect to the arbitration itself. Court affirm the judgment and the order.

Defendant appeals his conviction, following a plea of no contest, of one count of burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) His appellate counsel has raised no issues on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also advised appellant in writing that a Wende brief was being filed and that appellant was entitled to file his own statement identifying any issues he wanted to call to the courts attention. Appellant has declined to file any such statement. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

Appellant Jose Angel Flores was sentenced to 16 months in state prison after the trial court revoked his probation in two separate cases. Appellants court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court have done so and find no issues that merit briefing. Court modify the judgment to correct an error in the calculation of appellants presentence custody credits. Except as modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Janitor Israel Hernandez contracted human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after being twice stuck by bloody needles that had been improperly placed in the regular trash in the medical suite leased by Charles W. Hopkins, M.D. Mr. Hernandez and his wife Vilma (together Hernandez or plaintiffs) brought this action seeking damages for negligence, premises liability, negligence per se, and loss of consortium against, among others, Dr. Hopkins, who has since died. His estate (the Estate) appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding plaintiffs $1 million based on a finding that Dr. Hopkins was 50 percent responsible for plaintiffs injuries. Plaintiffs cross appeal challenging the calculation of damages. Court affirm the judgment in all respects.

In May 2004, the City of Santa Monica (the City) sued Baron & Budd, P.C.; Miller, Sher & Sawyer; Miller & Sawyer; Miller, Axline & Sawyer; Sher Leff, LLP; Cooper & Scully, P.C.; Frederick M. Baron; Scott Summy; Victor M. Sher; Duane C. Miller; and A. Curtis Sawyer, Jr. (the Lawyers), regarding a fee agreement executed in 2000. In October 2005, after litigating this case for 17 months, including moving for summary adjudication of the Lawyers cross-complaints and engaging in extensive discovery, the City moved to compel arbitration of the matter on the ground that the Citys discharge of Cooper & Scully in February 2002 triggered an arbitration provision in the fee agreement. The trial court denied the motion on various grounds, including that the City had waived arbitration. Court agree that the City waived arbitration and affirm.

A jury convicted appellant of the attempted, willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Saul Paredes (Pen. Code, 664/187)[1](count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon on Saul Paredes by means likely to produce great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2). The jury found true the allegation that in the commission of count 1, appellant personally used a dangerous weapon (a knife) within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). The jury found true the allegation that in the commission of both counts appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
Prior to a court hearing on the allegations that appellant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction and a prior prison term, the prosecution moved to strike the allegations. ( 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subd. (a); 667.5, subd. (b).)
After denying appellants new trial motion, the trial court sentenced him to life with the possibility of parole on count 1. The trial court imposed a consecutive sentence of one year for the personal use of a knife and a consecutive sentence of three years for the personal infliction of great bodily injury under section 12022.7. On count 2, the trial court imposed a sentence of seven years and stayed the sentence under section 654.
Appellant appeals on the grounds that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempted premeditated murder or attempted murder in light of the uncontroverted defense expert testimony that cast reasonable doubt on his actual mental state, and his right to due process was thereby violated; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the attempted murder was premeditated and deliberated, and appellants right to due process was violated; (3) the court used the wrong standard in denying appellants new trial motion; (4) reversal is required to correct violations of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that occurred when appellant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (count 2), since this is a necessarily included offense of attempted murder (count 1) when the latter crime is considered along with its accompanying allegations that appellant used a knife and inflicted great bodily injury; and (5) the trial court erroneously denied appellant his presentence conduct credits of 131 days.

Rita Martinez and Raymond Brie, former academic administrators for the Ventura Community College District, appeal from the judgment entered against them on their petition for writ of peremptory mandate. Appellants seek reinstatement on the grounds that their terminations were invalid. They were terminated by notice from Chancellor Phillip Westin.
Appellants contend that respondent Board of Trustees of the Ventura Community College District could not validly delegate to Chancellor Westin the board's duty to give notice of intent not to re-hire pursuant to section 72411 of the Education Code. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, in which a principal was armed with a firearm. Defendant contends that a statement he made to the police should have been suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602] (Miranda), a police witness improperly expressed his personal belief that defendant was involved in the murder, and the prosecutor committed misconduct. Defendant further contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in various respects. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of possessing methamphetamine for purposes of sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378.) He contends (1) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct, (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the trial court calculated his custody credits incorrectly. Court reject these arguments and affirm.

Laura Jane Napier, a California resident, created an inter vivos trust in 2003, designating herself as trustee and sole lifetime beneficiary. After Laura was placed in a conservatorship, appellant Larry Napier (Napier), a Florida resident, became the trustee. When a dispute arose between Napier and Lauras conservator, respondent Debra J. Dolch, Dolch filed a petition for instructions. Napier appeared specially, arguing that California courts could not assert personal jurisdiction over him because he was a nonresident who had no contacts with California. The trial court rejected his argument and granted the relief requested by the conservator. Court affirm.