CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
An employer asked the police to investigate a former employee's alleged theft of company computer equipment. The ensuing criminal prosecution was resolved in favor of the former employee, who then sued the employer for instigating the criminal inquiry. The trial court properly nonsuited the former employee: the tort of abuse of process is not a viable theory of recovery under the circumstances presented here and, in any event, reports made to the police of suspected criminal activity are absolutely privileged. Court affirm the judgment in favor of the employer/defendant.
|
Mother challenges the jurisdictional findings of the juvenile dependency court. The court found that Mother's son, is at risk of serious emotional damage as "the victim of a protracted custody and visitation dispute between his parents [causing him] to feel overwhelmed and angry, & suffer feelings of hopelessness." Substantial evidence supports the court's findings.
|
Following a contested probation violation hearing, appellant was found in violation of probation and sentenced to a prison term of three years. Contrary to appellant's contention, his constitutional rights were not violated when the court conducted the probation hearing with notice that the prosecution would proceed with such a hearing, but without notice of the exact date of the hearing. The judgment is affirmed.
|
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his conviction of second degree robbery with the use of a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife. (Pen. Code, SS 211, 12022, subd. (b)(1).) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction that required a five-year enhancement (S 667, subd. (a)(1)) and qualified him for sentencing pursuant to the three strikes law (SS 667, subds. (b) (e), 1170.12). The trial court additionally found that defendant had three prior felony convictions for which he had served a separate prison term. (S 667.5, subd. (b).) At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggregate 14 year term in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that he is entitled to have the judgment reversed because the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct. Court are not persuaded by the contention. Additionally, court asked the parties to brief, if they wished to do so, unaddressed sentencing error. After again considering the sentencing proceedings and a letter brief from appellate counsel, court hold there is no sentencing error. Court affirm the judgment with directions to the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment. |
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree residential robbery (Pen. Code, S 211), and a court trial in which he was found to have suffered two prior convictions of a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Additionally, the court found appellant had been convicted of four prior convictions of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, SS 667, subds. (b) (i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Defendant was sentenced to prison for 35 years to life, which consisted of a sentence of 25 years to life plus two 5-year enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike his prior convictions for serious or violent felonies. For reasons explained in the opinion, court affirm the judgment.
|
Defendant appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of first degree murder and found he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm that caused death. (Pen. Code, SS 187, 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court found that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions (SS 667, subd. (a)(1)), 1170.12, subd. (b)) and had two prior prison terms. (S 667.5, subd. (b).)[2] Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 50 years to life plus a consecutive term of 30 years to life for the firearm and prior conviction enhancements.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by excluding evidence of third party culpability and by giving CALJIC No. 2.03. Court find no error and affirm the judgment. |
The sole issue in this case is whether a victim restitution payment imposed by the court after defendant's guilty plea violated the terms of his plea bargain. Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause. Court conclude defendant has not demonstrated that the imposition of the victim restitution payment violated the terms of his plea bargain, a fact that distinguishes this case from the leading case of People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013 (Walker). Accordingly, court affirm the judgment and sentence.
|
Petitioners Jeanie S., the mother of the minors, and Dennis M., the father of Natalie S., Cody S. and Jason M., seek an extraordinary writ to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating their reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1 (now rule 8.452).) Petitioners raise several claims that court conclude are without merit. However, court conclude the juvenile court failed to make sufficient findings to support the termination of reunification services. Accordingly, court vacate the juvenile court's orders and remand for further proceedings.
|
Defendant appeals the imposition of an aggravated sentence and denial of probation following his no contest plea to one count of felony vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence while driving under the influence. (Pen. Code, S 192, subd. (c)(3).) Appellant contends the trial court relied upon improper factors to impose the aggravated sentence and that the court abused its discretion in denying probation. For the reasons indicated below, court remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.
|
Mother and Father appeal from the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights and ordering adoption as the permanent plan for the four children involved in this appeal. Mother and Father both argue that the juvenile court erred in finding that the "sibling relationship exception" set out in Welfare and Institutions code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(e), did not apply and, therefore, did not preclude the termination of their parental rights. Mother further contends that the juvenile court erred because it did not take into account the wishes of the oldest child, pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B). Court disagree and affirm the order.
|
Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of first degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. Defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing the upper term sentence for this offense, because it improperly considered aggravating factors in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as articulated in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). As discussed below, court find no prejudicial error and affirm.
|
Appellant appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Court have carefully reviewed the entire record in the case, particularly the facts relevant to the disposition of the case, and court discern no error or potential error requiring further briefing. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023