CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant was convicted, pursuant to a plea agreement, of evading a peace officer and leaving the scene of an accident in a Napa County case. Subsequently, pursuant to a plea agreement in this (Marin County) case, appellant was convicted of first degree residential burglary, and the two cases were consolidated. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion for 215 additional days of actual custody credits. He also argues that the court improperly imposed a subordinate, consecutive upper term on one of the counts in the Napa County case and that the abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect a midterm sentence on that count. We shall remand the matter to the trial court with directions to modify the abstract of judgment to include an additional 215 days of actual custody credits and to further modify the abstract of judgment, as well as an October 30, 2017 minute order, to reflect that appellant was sentenced to one-third the midterm on count 1

Nancy Hill appeals from an order approving a settlement agreement and dismissing a will contest. Finding no error, we affirm.

For the second time, San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. (Baykeeper) appeals a decision by the State Lands Commission (SLC) authorizing real party in interest Hanson Marine Operations, Inc. (Hanson) to dredge mine sand from sovereign lands under the San Francisco Bay (Bay) pursuant to 10-year mineral extraction leases (the sand mining project or project). In 2012, Baykeeper filed the underlying action, seeking a writ of mandate to compel the SLC to set aside its approval of the sand mining project. In 2015, a different panel of this court found that the SLC’s environmental review of the project complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), but that the SLC violated the public trust doctrine by approving the project without considering whether the sand mining leases were a proper use of public trust lands. (San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Com. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202 (Baykeeper I).)

Appellant City of Oakland (the City) appeals a jury verdict awarded to respondent Stefanie Rawlings arising from an accident where defendant David Hurth hit Rawlings with his car during a protest at the Port of Oakland. Rawlings sued both Hurth and the City for negligence, claiming the Oakland Police Department (OPD) directed Hurth to drive through the picket line causing her injuries. The jury found Rawlings to be 60 percent at fault, the City to be 40 percent at fault, and assigned no liability to Hurth. The City alleges that the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence, the court made erroneous evidentiary rulings, and the court erred in denying both its motion for summary adjudication and motion for a new trial. We affirm.

Reginald Lett, Sr. was convicted of raping his brother-in-law’s girlfriend, Sandra C. He contends the trial court should have dismissed the case as a sanction for the prosecution’s failure to preserve exculpatory text messages between himself and Sandra. He also contends defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective when he misinterpreted the time stamps on Sandra’s phone records and then failed to object when the prosecutor exploited the error at trial to argue that Lett lied about when the calls were made. We affirm.

Appellants Campbell Union School District (CUSD) and Campbell Union School District Governing Board (the Board) appeal from the trial court’s invalidation of the Board’s 2012 resolution enacting a fee on new residential development under Education Code section 17620. CUSD and the Board contend that the trial court could not invalidate the Board’s resolution and order that respondent SummerHill Winchester, LLC’s fees be refunded because the Board properly relied on a fee study that used a reasonable methodology to calculate the fee. We conclude that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Prior to February 2010, Provident Holdings & Investments, LLC (Provident) was the owner of commercial property located at 2157 South 10th Street in San Jose (the Property). Provident purchased the Property in 2005 with a secured loan made by Cathay Bank (the Bank). The next year, using a secured construction loan from the Bank, Provident developed and subdivided the Property into 12 separate office condominium units. In October 2009, the Bank as secured lender instructed the trustee under the first deed of trust, Chicago Title Company, to commence nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings as to seven of the units. (Hereafter, the Bank and Chicago Title are collectively referred to as the defendants.) A trustee’s sale took place on February 19, 2010, at which time the Bank, as the sole bidder, purchased the seven units through a credit bid.

In this case, the trial court exercised its discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to dismiss various sentence enhancements appellant admitted as part of a plea bargain. The People contend reversal is required because the court failed to set forth its reasons for dismissal on the record. We must agree.

A jury convicted defendant Noe Romo Gonzales of one count of first degree burglary of an occupied home (Pen. Code §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), one count of annoying or molesting a child after trespassing into her home (§ 647.6, subd. (b)), and one count of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to a total state prison term of 19 years 8 months as follows: (1) the upper term of six years for the first degree burglary count, which was doubled to 12 years pursuant to the three strikes law; (2) one year 4 months (one-third the middle term of two years doubled for the strike) for the annoying or molesting a child count; (3) one year 4 months (one-third the middle term of two years doubled for the strike) on the false imprisonment count; and (4) five years for a prior serious felony conviction.

Appellant Raymundo Molina was convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse. On appeal, he contends 1) his police confession should have been suppressed on Miranda grounds (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda);
2) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for sexual penetration; and
3) the jury instructions on the sexual penetration count were flawed. Finding no basis for reversal, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment after a bench trial in which the court denied plaintiff’s request to impose an equitable lien on certain life insurance proceeds. Plaintiff also appeals from a fee award in favor of State Farm Life Insurance Company under the interpleader statute. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable relief. We dismiss the appeal as to State Farm because plaintiff did not separately appeal from the postjudgment order, and thus we do not have jurisdiction to review it.

Plaintiff Susan Pasquale was employed with the title of business manager by defendant Fresno’s Chaffee Zoo Corporation (the zoo) from 2006 until her termination in 2012. She sued the zoo in 2013, alleging she had been misclassified as an exempt employee. She claimed unpaid overtime wages as damages.
The gist of Pasquale’s claim was that, although she bore a management title in the accounting department throughout her employment at the zoo, that department was in reality directly managed by her supervisor, the zoo’s chief financial officer. She claimed she never had substantial independent or discretionary duties, and her authority over the accounting clerks nominally reporting to her was constantly undermined, so she was really only an accounting clerk herself.

Defendant and appellant B.K. (Father) appeals after the termination of his parental rights to K.G. (Minor) and the selection of adoption as Minor’s permanent plan at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Father makes one claim on appeal that the juvenile court should have ordered a guardianship rather than terminate his parental rights by applying the beneficial parent-child bond exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), as it served the best interests of Minor.

Defendants and appellants A.J. (mother) and S.N. (father; collectively, parents), and their five older children I.N. (a boy, born Dec. 2001; child1 ), Sh.N. (a boy, born Sept. 2004; child2), Ka.N. (a girl, born Dec. 2005; child3), Ki.N. (a girl, born Jan. 2007; child4), and Jo.N. (a boy, born Mar. 2011; child5), challenge the court’s order denying their request to apply the sibling bond exception to preclude the termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), as to their three younger siblings, Je.N. (a boy, born April 2013; child6) and A.N. and E.N. (girls, born May 2015; child7 & child8). For the reasons set forth post, we shall affirm the judgment.