CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
Petitioner petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contends the Board of Prison Terms (now the Board of Parole Hearings; hereafter, the Board) erroneously denied him parole. (See Pen. Code, S 3041, subd. (a).) Court grant the petition in a limited respect.
In 1982 petitioner was convicted of second degree murder for killing Joseph Lopez (Mr. Lopez) and assault with a deadly weapon, with great bodily injury, for shooting Mr. Lopez's wife, Caroline Lopez (Mrs. Lopez). (Pen. Code, Ss 187, 245, subd. (a).) Petitioner was sentenced to 15 years to life on the murder conviction. The sentences on the assault conviction and various firearm and injury enhancements were stayed. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in the superior court. That court concluded the "record show[ed] individualized consideration of [petitioner's] case and a determination of [parole] unsuitability based on some evidence." Petitioner then filed a habeas corpus petition with this court. Petitioner contends (1) there was no evidence to support the Board's findings of parole unsuitability and a three-year parole denial; (2) the Board violated due process by continuing to rely on the facts of the offense to deny parole; and (3) his shackling at the parole hearing was unconstitutional. Court issued an order to show cause to the Board on April 27, 2006. Court agree with petitioner that there was no evidence to support the three-year parole denial, and court grant the petition in that respect. |
A jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation for five years on the condition, among others, that he serve 180 days of incarceration and pay a $200 probation revocation restitution fine.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the elements of robbery and incorrectly responded to a jury question. Court disagree and affirm. |
Court hold (1) that plaintiffs may not obtain the defendant's psychotherapy records because they are absolutely protected from disclosure, and (2) that plaintiffs may not obtain defendant's other medical records because plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for disclosure.
|
Petitioner is the presumed father of minor, a dependent of the juvenile court. By a petition for writ of mandate under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1 (rule 38.1), Father challenges the juvenile court's order setting a hearing under section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to consider termination of his parental rights concerning minor. Court deny the petition on its merits.
|
Appellant pled no contest to one count of oral copulation of a person under 14 in violation of Penal Code section 288a and one count of a lewd act on a child in violation of section 288, subdivision (a). Sixteen years later he filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis seeking to withdraw that plea on the ground that he was not advised of all the consequences of his plea and that the trial court did not establish a factual basis for the plea. The trial court summarily denied the petition.
Appellant appeals from the denial of the Petition, contending that the trial court erred. We dismiss the appeal. |
Defendant appeals from the order after judgment denying his motion to set aside his April 17, 2006, negotiated plea of no contest to possessing base cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, S 11351.5), with his admission that he had a prior conviction qualifying him for sentencing pursuant to the "Three Strikes" law (Pen. Code, Ss 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12).
Court are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) |
Defendant appeals a judgment after jury trial, following his conviction of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, S 422), corporal injury to a child's parent (S 273.5, subd. (a)), forcible oral copulation (S 288a, subd. (c)(2)), sexual battery by restraint (S 243.4, subd. (a)), and forcible rape (S 261, subd. (a)(2)). The court imposed an aggregate state prison term of 24 years and 8 months, which included an upper term sentence of 8 years for the forcible oral copulation count, and the upper term of 8 years for the forcible rape count. The court ruled that those sentences run consecutively.
Court conclude 1) the trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences for Defendant's convictions of forcible oral copulation and forcible rape, and 2) the trial judge's exercise of discretion to impose the upper terms for those offenses does not implicate Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. (People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, 1244.) Court affirm. |
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant breached an agreement to pay plaintiff $3 million with respect to a corporation's promissory note to the plaintiff. The defendant sought summary judgment, contending the plaintiff's release of the corporation and its former officers and directors, of whom defendant was one, from "any and all" claims expressly released the defendant from the $3 million obligation. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for the defendant. Court affirm the judgment.
|
Defendant was charged with one count of carjacking with the use of a gun, one count of unlawfully driving a vehicle, and one count of receiving stolen property. The charges were based on evidence that in May 2005 defendant approached a car in which Melissa Brown was sitting, pointed a gun at Brown and told her to get out, and drove the car away after Brown did so. Defendant was apprehended three months later while a passenger in Brown's car.
A jury convicted defendant of carjacking, with a finding that he personally used a firearm, and of receiving stolen property (the receiving conviction was dismissed at the prosecutor's request). Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to state prison for a term of 15 years. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel (Lynette Gladd Moore) to represent him. Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (Nov. 27, 2006, S133114) Cal.4th [2006 D.A.R. 15444]; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) |
Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of Penal Code section 12316, subdivision (b)(1). Defendant appeals from the judgment, contending that his motion to suppress evidence - the shotgun shells found in a car he was driving - should have been granted because the peace officer who seized the shells did not have probable cause to believe that the shells were evidence of a crime. Defendant cannot raise this assertion on appeal, however, because he did not assert it in his motion in the trial court. In any event, the admission of the shells themselves did not prejudice defendant in light of witness testimony that there were shotgun shells in the car defendant was driving. Accordingly, court affirm the judgment.
|
This is the sixth appeal by mother in a series of appeals involving mother's children(collectively the minors). Mother challenges the juvenile court's order giving the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) discretion to permit visitation with the minors when appropriate. According to mother, the order was an improper delegation of authority. But that order was issued on March 14, 2006, and mother only appealed the orders of February 7, 2006. As explained by Polster, Inc. v. Swing (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 427, 436 (Polster), "[o]ur jurisdiction on appeal is limited in scope to the notice of appeal and the . . . order appealed from." Mother's briefs do not attack any of the orders entered on February 7, 2006. Consequently, any assignment of error has been waived, and court affirm.
|
The parents of minor, appeal from juvenile court orders declaring minor a dependent child of the court; denying the parents reunification services; identifying adoption as minor's permanent plan; and ordering permanent placement services for the child. Mother and father contend they were denied due process because they were not given adequate notice of the detention hearing. Court agree, and reverse all orders.
|
Appellant appeals from the juvenile court's disposition order removing her 11 year old son. from her custody and permitting him to remain in the full-time custody of his father. Mother contends the court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and, in addition, the court erred in refusing to consider evidence of father's history of domestic violence. Mother also asserts a portion of the court's disposition order prohibiting her from discussing religion, Satan or the Bible with Kevin or in his presence is overbroad. Court modify the order to remove that prohibition and, as modified, affirm the juvenile court's order.
|
The trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer to a complaint alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and slander per se. The court concluded, among other matters, that the statement alleged in the complaint is privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), statement made in an official proceeding. Court affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77269
Regular: 77269
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77269
Last listing added: 06:28:2023