CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant was convicted of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, S 10851, subd. (a)) and possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, S 11377, subd. (a)) by plea of no contest. He was sentenced to two years in state prison. He appeals, alleging that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. Court find no error and affirm.

Defendant appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Where defendant's acts of driving while intoxicated and evading peace officers across California Nevada state line constituted continuous course of conduct during which he first violated laws of California and then violated laws of Nevada, physical acts he committed in California were not the same physical acts he committed in Nevada, thus his convictions in Nevada for his conduct in Nevada did not, under Penal Code Sec. 656, preclude his prosecution in California for his conduct in California even though some of the elements of the offenses overlap.

This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, court upheld the juvenile court's decision to commit appellant to the California Youth Authority (CYA), but remanded the matter for the court to exercise its discretion in setting appellant's maximum term of confinement pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 731(b).) In this appeal, appellant contends the court's postremand order setting the maximum term of confinement at six years two months was an abuse of discretion, and his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise issues regarding the court's determination of the maximum term of confinement. In a related petition for habeas corpus, appellant again asserts that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these identical issues.

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a short-barreled shotgun. On appeal, he contends his convictions must be reversed because the jury was neither instructed on unanimity by the trial court nor informed by the prosecution that it elected to seek conviction based only on one discrete act. Court affirm.

This is an appeal from two orders issued by the trial court in a marital dissolution case. Appellant Richard Bailey appeals from (1) an order finding certain real property acquired during the parties' marriage, the parties' former house, to be the separate property of respondent (order), and (2) a subsequent order on appellant's motion to vacate the order that, among other things, left in effect the trial court's finding regarding the house (subsequent order) (collectively, the orders). Appellant filed his opening brief on December 29, 2006.
we decline appellant's request to treat the appeal as a petition for extraordinary writ within its original jurisdiction. Appellant may appeal the trial court's findings regarding the parties' ownership interest in the house along with any other findings regarding the parties' property once a final judgment has issued.

Petitioner, a minor, petitions for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he has been unlawfully committed to the Contra Costa Boys' Ranch as a condition of the grant of deferred entry of judgment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 790 et seq.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted to the extent that the trial court is directed to determine whether grant of deferred entry of judgment is still appropriate without the authority to condition it on confinement, and pursuant to the plea agreement, permit petitioner to withdraw his plea if deferred entry of judgment is denied.

Continental appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted Lynwood Redevelopment Agency's (LRA) motion for terminating sanctions and denied Continental's motion to set aside the dismissal of its action for declaratory relief. Court reverse.

Appellants were convicted of the second degree robbery of Edwin Martinez. The jury found gun use allegations not true, and Martinez was acquitted of assault with a firearm. Martinez contends that because the jury rejected gun use allegations, the evidence that he had been armed cannot be considered in a substantial evidence review. Defendant also contends that evidence of appellants' gang membership should have been excluded. Court reject both contentions and affirm the judgment as to Martinez.
Counsel for Beltran joined in any of Martinez's arguments that might benefit him, but found no arguable issues, and has requested an independent review of the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259. After thoroughly reviewing the record, court have identified no arguable issues for appellate review, and therefore affirm the judgment as to Beltran as well.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered against him following a bench trial on a breach of contract claim brought by plaintiffs and respondents A.C. Investments, Inc. The trial court ordered appellant, as the seller, to specifically perform a residential purchase agreement (purchase agreement). Appellant contends that substantial evidence does not support the judgment. Specifically, he contends the evidence does not support the trial court's findings that appellant's real estate agent satisfied her fiduciary obligations to appellant and that the purchase agreement had not been rescinded. Because substantial evidence supported the judgment, court affirm.

Appellant appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court after the court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging he had violated Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a)(1) (minor in possession of a weapon). At disposition, the juvenile court ordered camp community placement for six months. Octavio appeals, contending his admission of the alleged offense was invalid and that the juvenile court's disposition order was erroneous.
The judgment is reversed and remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

The jury found defendant guilty of attempted robbery and making criminal threats against his father, in violation of Penal Code sections 664/211 and 422. Defendant admitted suffering one serious or violent felony conviction under the three strikes law (SS 1170.12, 667, subds. (b) (i)), and that the same conviction was a prior serious felony within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced defendant to a nine year prison term for the criminal threats offense (the two year middle term doubled pursuant to the three strikes law, plus the five year serious felony enhancement), and a concurrent four year term for the attempted robbery conviction (the two year middle term doubled pursuant to the three strikes law).
Defendant timely appealed from the judgment. Defendant contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior crime that defendant robbed his father in 2001 under similar circumstances to those of the charged offenses, and (2) section 654's bar against multiple punishments requires the staying of one of the two sentences imposed. Court find no trial error, but agree that the sentence runs afoul of section 654. Accordingly, court order the trial court to stay the sentence on the attempted robbery conviction and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff, appeals from a judgment on the pleadings of the entirety of an amended complaint for legal malpractice, contract and fiduciary breach, and fraud in favor of its former attorneys, defendants, Nicholas Rockefeller, David Biderman, and Vick Mansourian, and Perkins Coie, LLP. The judgment on the pleadings motion was granted on the ground that the amended complaint was a sham pleading because it contained allegations which directly contradicted those in the original verified complaint. Court agree with defendants that there are inconsistent claims in the original and amended complaints. Nonetheless, each count of the amended complaint contains consistent claims. Therefore, the judgment on the pleadings motion should have been denied.

This is a legal malpractice action. Plaintiff, appeals from a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants, and the Law Offices of Mifflin & Associates. The trial court dismissed this case on the date set for trial. The trial court found plaintiff had failed to comply with the expert witness designation requirements of former Code of Civil Procedure section 2034 (now section 2034.010 et seq.). The trial court found plaintiff could not prevail without presenting expert testimony. Court affirm the judgment.