CA Unpub Decisions

Larry Wax (Father) appeals from an order regarding the three children of himself and his former wife, respondent Elizabeth Wax (Mother). He argues that the court abused its discretion when it made orders regarding therapy for those children. He also contends that Marin Countys local rule imposing a fee for the appearance of a court appointed mediator at a hearing is inconsistent with state law and that the practice of the Marin Family Court Services (FCS) of excluding counsel from mediation deprived him of the assistance of counsel at a critical point in the proceedings. Court conclude that, although the court erred in not making therapy-related findings required under Family Code section 3190, this error was not prejudicial. Court also conclude that Father waived his remaining arguments and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Nancy Pak appeals following a jury trial and judgment entered against her in the action brought by plaintiff and respondent Hyun Jung Lee (Lee). A jury awarded Lee damages in the amount of $1,032,399 for injuries she suffered after a gate on appellants premises fell on her. Appellant contends that the $672,640 award for noneconomic damages is excessive. Court affirm. The award is supported by the evidence and is not so large that it indicates the jury was motivated by passion or prejudice.

Ulrick K. White appeals a judgment following his conviction, after trial by jury, of forcible rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2)) and false imprisonment ( 236). We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not err by admitting a tape recording of a 911 call, but it erred by imposing the upper term for the rape conviction by relying on sentencing factors which were not tried by a jury. (Cunningham v. California(2007) 549 U. S. [127 S.Ct. 856].) Court vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendants Wilson Rodriguez and Jesus Estrada were charged with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) (Count 1) and assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)) (Count 2). The People also alleged that a principal in the robbery charged in Count 1 was armed with a firearm. ( 12022, subd. (a)(1).) A jury convicted defendants on Count 1; on Count 2, the jury convicted defendants of assault ( 240), a lesser included offense. The jury found not true the allegation under section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court sentenced Estrada to the middle term of three years on Count 1 and to 180 days in county jail on Count 2, with the sentence on Count 2 stayed pursuant to section 654. The trial court placed Rodriguez on three years formal probation, with the condition, among others, that he serve 365 days in the county jail. Court affirm.

Planned Parenthood Los Angeles (PPLA) terminated P. Victor Gonzalez (Gonzalez), from his position as vice-president of finance and administration in 2004. Gonzalez sued for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, claiming his termination was in retaliation for identifying illegalities in PPLAs administrative procedures and operations. Gonzalez attached over 200 pages of internal PPLA documents and files to his first amended complaint. During discovery, PPLA learned that Gonzalez was in possession of additional PPLA writings, which it claimed were confidential and proprietary. PPLA filed a cross-complaint for conversion, misappropriation and breach of confidentiality. Gonzalez moved to strike the cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16[1]as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Gonzalez appeals the trial courts denial of his anti-SLAPP motion.

The order is affirmed. PPLAs motion for sanctions is denied.

Appellant Jesus Salvador Santoyo was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a short-barreled shotgun ( 12020, subd. (a)(1)). He appeals the doubling of his sentence under the Three Strikes law ( 667, subd. (d)(1), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1)) based on a prior conviction for assault under section 245, subdivision (a)(1). That section can support a conviction either for an assault with a deadly weapon, which qualifies as a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(31) and thus a strike, or with force likely to produce great bodily injury, which does not qualify as a strike under that section. Santoyo contends his section 245 assault conviction did not qualify as a strike because there was no explicit finding that the assault was a serious felony and that any implied finding of a serious felony was not supported by substantial evidence, which consisted of an abstract of judgment stating that his conviction was for assault w/deadly weapn. Santoyo also requests our review of the trial courts order of an in camera hearing pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Court affirm.

Appellant Keith Wachter (Wachter) fell from a roof that collapsed underneath him. He sued the manufacturer of the steel hangers that were used in the construction of the roof, respondent Tobin Steel Company, Inc. (Tobin), contending that the hangers were defectively designed and that Tobin failed to provide adequate warnings regarding installation. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Tobin. Because we agree that Wachter failed to establish a triable issue of material fact, Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Lokeni Alisa Pule (defendant) was charged with carjacking and second degree robbery. The two victims separately identified him from a photographic line up and at trial. When arrested, defendant was in possession of a handgun similar to the one used in the carjacking and robbery. The jury found defendant guilty. On appeal, defendant contends that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct by expressing his belief in defendants guilt. We hold that defendants claim of prosecutorial misconduct is not reviewable on appeal because he failed to object on that ground or request an admonition in the trial court; that even if we were to review the claim, the challenged remark was not misconduct; and that defendant was not prejudiced by the remark. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Walter Radford appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of making a false financial statement, count 3 (Pen. Code, 532a, subd. (1)) and forgery, count 4 (Pen. Code, 470b.) He admitted he suffered a prior conviction and served a prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for a total of three years, consisting of the middle term of two years for count 3, a concurrent middle term of two years for count 4, and one year pursuant to his prior conviction enhancement. After review of the record, appellants court appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant David M. Benavidez of one count of carjacking. (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a).) Court affirm.

This appeal arises from a dependency proceeding concerning appellant Daisy L.'s son, Ivan O. The dependency terminated with a family law order under Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 362.4 which awarded joint legal custody to mother and father, and sole physical custody to father. That judgment also included an order on mother's visits. On appeal, mother contends that the visits portion of the order is in error, because it does not comport with the order announced by the trial court. Court affirm.

Following remand for resentencing, the trial court sentenced Robert James Wood (Wood) to a term of 25 years in state prison. Wood appeals the judgment entered following imposition of the sentence and seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Court affirm the judgment and deny the writ petition.

Oscar G. (father) appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating his parental rights and freeing his two year old son, Nathan G. (Nathan), for adoption pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] We appointed counsel to represent father in this appeal. After examination of the record, fathers attorney submitted a letter pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, indicating an inability to find any arguable issues. On February 2, 2007, we advised father by letter that he had 30 days in which to submit any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Father submitted a letter on March 6, 2007, in which he contends that he was not adequately represented by his attorney in the juvenile court proceedings.
After independently reviewing the record, we hold that father has failed to establish his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Court therefore affirm the juvenile courts order terminating his parental rights.

Angry at her boyfriends decision to move out of their apartment, defendant Lena Renae Coleman shot him in the chest, telling him: If I cant have you, nobody can have you. Defendants boyfriend survived. A jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder and assault with a firearm. Sentenced to 32 years to life, defendant appeals, citing numerous alleged errors by the trial court: (1) admission of a tape recording of a 911 call, (2) denying defendants motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, (3) denying defendants motion for a new trial based on a claim that a ballistics test should have been performed, (4) limiting defendants cross-examination of the victim, (5) failing to instruct on self-defense or voluntary manslaughter, and (6) giving an instruction on evidence of flight. Court affirm the judgment.