CA Unpub Decisions

A state prison inmate, filed a civil action for injunctive relief and damages against employees of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The trial court struck the claim for damages because Wolfe failed to comply with the Tort Claims Act, and directed that the claim for injunctive relief be refiled as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant appeals, but does not challenge the order that his claim for injunctive relief be refiled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He simply asserts that the trial court erred in striking the claim for damages, and contends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation violated his rights. Defendants move to dismiss the appeal, arguing it is from a nonappealable order or, in the alternative, it is untimely.
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal, and affirmed the trial court’s order.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree burglary, receiving stolen property, and felony petty theft. The trial court found defendant had served a prior prison term for burglary, and sentenced him to an aggregate unstayed prison term of seven years. In case another case, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to receiving stolen property. In accordance with the plea agreement, other charges and another pending action was dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to a prison term of two years to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in the previous case.
On appeal, defendant raises four claims of error. The Court agreed that one of defendant’s contentions had merit--his receiving stolen property conviction must be reversed because he “cannot be convicted of both stealing and receiving the same property . . . .” Court otherwise affirmed the judgment.

Defendants appeal damages awarded to Appellants, relating to the breach of a partnership agreement to develop low-income housing. San Diego/Fox Hollow L.P. cross-appeals the award of damages to Baronet and Company, Inc. on its cross-complaint relating to a construction contract.
Appellants contends the damage award should be reversed because it was based on conditions the City of San Diego illegally imposed and BCP breached its fiduciary duty by agreeing to the conditions. Fox Hollow contends the court erred in finding Baronet did not breach the contract when it failed to complete construction by December 31, 2000, and in failing to allow Fox Hollow to offset damages it incurred due to Baronet's construction defects. Court affirmed the judgment.

The juvenile court declared minor, a ward after entering a true finding he committed vandalism causing more than $400 in damage. The court placed Cody on probation including a condition he pay, jointly and severally with his accomplices, $21,300 restitution to the victim. On appeal, defendant requested the court independently review the record. Judgment Affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder, by poisoning, one count of felony elder abuse, during which he caused the victim’s death and inflicted great bodily injury on the elderly victim, and five counts of misdemeanor elder abuse. Defendant was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole and appeals claiming evidence was improperly admitted and the prosecutor committed misconduct. Court rejected his contentions and affirmed, while directing the trial court to correct errors in the indeterminate abstract of judgment and complete a determinate abstract of judgment.

Defendant was charged with one count of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14. Defendant moved to suppress statements that he made during a police interview because they were involuntary. The trial court denied the motion. A jury then convicted defendant as charged. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court should not have admitted his statements made to the police because they were not voluntary, but rather, were obtained through psychological coercion and deception. Court disagreed and affirmed.

Plaintiff appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of defendants, the two individual defendants being employees of Doral Resort. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all causes of action based on the conditional common interest privilege set forth in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c). Plaintiff argues the privilege never arose because there was no common interest and because statements attributable to defendants were made maliciously and with a complete disregard of the truth. Court concluded defendants established the alleged defamatory statements were made on a privileged occasion, and plaintiff did not meet her burden of producing evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer malice. Court therefore affirmed the judgment. Court also disposed summarily of plaintiff’s contentions relying on an unalleged ostensible agency and attacking an additional ground of the summary judgment.

Appellant appeals from a medical negligence judgment. It contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of causation. Court affirmed the judgment.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant on the complaint of plaintiff, for damages based on alleged employment discrimination. Plaintiff also challenges orders awarding defendant sanctions on a discovery motion against plaintiff and on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the trial court’s ruling on defendant’s discovery motions. Court concluded the summary judgment motion was properly granted and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the noted sanctions. Therefore, court affirmed the judgment.

Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to her son. Mother argues that the order should be reversed because the juvenile court erred in denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and because the court erred in failing to apply the sibling exception. Three of the child’s siblings have also appealed the court’s order. Court affirmed.

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants’ special motion to strike brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as the anti-SLAPP. Plaintiff’s lawsuit concerns code enforcement activities by the City of Ontario and its employees (the City defendants) and the law firm of Best, Best and Krieger and certain of its lawyers (the attorney defendants). Defendants’ SLAPP motion was granted as to four of plaintiffs’ five causes of action. The fifth cause of action remains viable.
Court held that plaintiff’s claims are based on protected activity by defendants, as defined by section 425.16, subdivisions (b) and (e), and that plaintiff cannot make the required showing of the probability of prevailing. Court affirmed the court’s order granting the SLAPP motion as it pertains to four causes of action. Court cannot, however, review the trial court’s order denying without prejudice the SLAPP motion as to the fifth cause of action because no appeal was taken from that order.

A jury convicted defendant, a 16-year-old member of a street gang and a codefendant, of eight criminal counts: three counts (counts 1, 3, and 4) of attempted murder; one count (count 2) of engaging in gang crime; three counts (counts 5, 6, and 7) of assault with a firearm; and one count (count 8) of shooting at an occupied car. Defendant was acquitted on count 9 for shooting from a car. Additionally, the jury found true the charged enhancements for personally discharging a firearm, causing great bodily injury; personally using a firearm; and committing all crimes, except count 2, to benefit a criminal street gang. The jury also found true the deliberation enhancement on count 1 but not on counts 3 and 4. The court pronounced a collective sentence of 40 years to life.
On appeal, defendant claims the jury could not have found the deliberation enhancement on count 1 to be true because it was uncharged. Appellant also urges the court committed several kinds of instructional error involving CALJIC No. 8.66.1, the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and CALJIC No. 2.70. Judgment Affirmed.

Father appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his daughters. Father contends the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the juvenile dependency proceedings because of noncompliance with Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) notice requirements. In addition, father claims the juvenile court exceeded its jurisdiction when it terminated his parental rights to daughter based on erroneous findings that another man was child’s father. Father also asserts that he was deprived of counsel following the referral hearing.
Court concluded that there was sufficient ICWA notice and the juvenile court did not exceed its jurisdiction when terminating father’s parental rights to child. Court also rejected father’s claim that he was not represented by counsel after the referral hearing. Order affirmed.

An information was filed against defendant alleging in count 1 of kidnapping and an enhancement of personal firearm use; in counts 2, 3, 4, and 5, each, a violation of assault with a firearm and an enhancement of personal firearm use); in counts 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14, each, a violation of criminal threats and an enhancement; in counts 10, 11, 12, and 13, each, a violation of false imprisonment by violence and an enhancement; and in count 15 a violation of first degree burglary and an enhancement.
After independently reviewing the record, court concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument existed.