CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after a court trial in which he was convicted of indecent exposure. He contends his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his complaint against defendant Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. All three causes of action alleged in the complaint for breach of contract, common count, and declaratory relief were based upon a purported contract, consisting of several documents, that Capolongo attached to the complaint. Because those documents do not constitute a contract as a matter of law, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant, Catherine Irene Keidser, appeals from her conviction for methamphetamine possession. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a).) Defendant argues the trial court interfered with defense counsels questioning and committed misconduct. Court affirm.

A jury convicted appellant Aaron L. Batiste of two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)) and one count of mayhem ( 203); as to all three counts the jury found true that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). The jury found one of the counts of attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation ( 664, subd. (a)). Appellant was also convicted of one count of negligent discharge of a firearm in public ( 246.3) and one count of assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)); as to the latter count the jury found that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)).
The trial court sentenced appellant to state prison for a term of 88 years to life, consisting of: life with the possibility of parole for one count of attempted murder, plus 25 years to life for the section 12022.53 enhancement as to that count; the middle term of 4 years on the mayhem count, plus 25 years to life for the section 12022.53 enhancement as to that count, to run consecutively to the sentence on the prior count; the middle term of 2 years on the negligent discharge of a firearm count, to run consecutively; the middle term of 7 years for the second attempted murder count, plus 25 years to life for the section 12022.53 enhancement as to that count, to run consecutively to all other counts; and 1 year (one-third of the middle term of 3 years) for the assault with a firearm count, which the court ordered stayed pursuant to section 654.
In this appeal from the judgment of conviction, appellant claims the trial court erred by failing to stay, pursuant to section 654, (1) the 4-year sentence imposed for the mayhem count, (2) the 25-year-to-life enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) relating to the mayhem count, and (3) the 2-year sentence for the discharge of a firearm count. He also argues the court erred in imposing the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement on the mayhem count because it incorporates the definition of great bodily injury found insection 12022.7, and the latter section is not applicable where great bodily injury is an element of the underlying offense, as is the case with mayhem. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in imposing full, consecutive terms on the subordinate, determinate counts ( 1170.1). Finally, he contends that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing argument, requiring reversal.
The judgment is modified (1) to provide as to the mayhem count (count 5) that execution of the 4-year sentence and the 25-year-to-life sentence for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d), enhancement are stayed pursuant to section 654, the stay to become permanent upon service of the remainder of the sentence; and (2) to provide that appellant is sentenced to 8 months (one-third of the middle term of 2 years) for the negligent discharge of a firearm count (count 7), to run consecutively, resulting in a total state prison term of 57 years and 8 months to life. The trial court is ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting these modifications. The trial court send a corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for premeditated attempted murder, attempted murder, and discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle, with firearm use and gang enhancements (Pen. Code, 664/187, 246, 12022.53, 186.22). Sentenced to state prison for 72 years to life, Garcia claims there was trial and sentencing error.
The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Fernando P. appeals from an order of the juvenile court sustaining a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging he had committed misdemeanor vandalism, declaring him to be a ward of the juvenile court, and ordering him home on probation. Fernando P.s sole contention is the court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement. Because the court was not required to set a maximum term of confinement, Court affirm.

Hector Moncada was convicted of a felony, leaving the scene of an accident. (Veh. Code 20001, subd. (a).) Moncada appeals an order of the trial court converting a condition of probation requiring restitution into a civil judgment. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, count 1 (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property, the vehicle, count 2 (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)). Additionally, he was found in violation of probation. He admitted he previously was convicted of a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 within the meaning of Penal Code section 666.5 and served prison terms for three prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5. He was sentenced to prison for five years and eight months, consisting of the middle term of two years plus an additional year pursuant to Penal Code section 666.5 for count 1, two consecutive one year terms for two of the prior prison term enhancements and eight months for the probation violation. Sentence on count 2 was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
The judgment is affirmed.

In May 2006, the dependency court found that Dawn G. had an unresolved drug problem rendering her periodically unable to care for her four children, and that her acrimonious relationship with the father of her two youngest children created a detrimental environment for all four children. In August, the court removed Dawns children from her care and directed Dawn to enroll in various programs. Dawn appeals from these orders. Court affirm.

Lee Michael Castrejon appeals from a judgment entered following his guilty plea to infliction of corporal injury to a spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or childs parent (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) and possession of a short barreled shotgun (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(1)). Imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on formal probation for three years under certain terms and conditions, including that he spend 180 days in jail. Court attempted on October 25, 2006, and December 6, 2006, to advise appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. Both notices were returned by the post office as undeliverable. Appointed counsel was contacted and he indicated he does not have a current forwarding address for appellant. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellants were sued, along with several other defendants, by plaintiffs Bernelle Krause and the Kalman Krause Family Limited Partnership. Appellants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a contractual arbitration agreement to which they and plaintiffs are parties, but to which the remaining defendants are not. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c), the litigation arises out of a series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on issues held in common by appellants, who would be subject to the arbitration, and the remaining defendants, who would not. Court find no abuse of discretion, and affirm.

Petitioner K.G. seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile courts order, made at the 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.21, subd. (f)), setting a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for her two-year-old son Ray. The petition is opposed by the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) and also by Ray, who has filed a joinder in the Departments response. Court deny the petition, finding no merit in K.G.s contention the court should have ordered extension of reunification for an additional period.

Because the plaintiff has not shown that the defendant has current contact with California or that its past contact was related to the plaintiffs claim, the plaintiff has not carried his burden to show that California may assume jurisdiction over the defendant. Because the plaintiff has not shown what type of discovery he would conduct or what he expects to find, Court deny his request to conduct further discovery.

The trial court abused its discretion when it erroneously denied as untimely defendant Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 challenge. Accordingly, Court grant the petition for writ of mandate.