CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
Miguel Arana appeals from a judgment convicting him of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). Arana’s appellate counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) summarizing the facts in this case and the procedural history, but raising no issue, and asked this court to independently review the record, including the sealed record of an in camera review of police officer personnel records conducted pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 538 (Pitchess). On May 24, 2018, the clerk of this court advised Arana that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or argument that he wished this court to consider. We received no response.
|
A jury found appellant Robert Becerra guilty of charges arising from three separate gang-related shootings: one count of first degree murder, three counts of premeditated attempted murder, two counts of shooting at an occupied vehicle, two counts of assault with a firearm, and three counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. He appeals the trial court’s judgment and sentence, alleging the following: (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct in misstating the burden of proof during closing argument; (2) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; (3) the errors were cumulatively prejudicial as to the murder conviction; (4) there is insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement on the murder conviction; (5) the sentencing court must be permitted to exercise its newly-granted discretion to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.); and (6) the abstract of judgment contains a clerical error that must be
|
This is the fifth lawsuit appellant Alejandro Alers, Sr. (Alers), has filed concerning an alleged wrongful $4,500 debit to the checking account he maintained with Bank of America, N.A. (the Bank). After his first lawsuit against the Bank failed, Alers filed a succession of cases claiming that the Bank and its outside counsel, Severson & Werson (Severson), engaged in fraud in defending against Alers’s claims. The current action, against both the Bank and Severson (collectively, Respondents), is the fourth lawsuit alleging such litigation misconduct.
|
Plaintiff and cross-defendant JV Soccer Center LLC (JVSC), sued defendant and cross-complainant ADMA Associates L.P. (ADMA), for declaratory relief, seeking a determination of whether JVSC could properly exercise an option to extend the term of a commercial lease. ADMA cross-complained for breach of contract. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled in favor of JVSC, declaring JVSC’s right to exercise the option and finding that any breach of the lease had been immaterial or rectified. The trial court entered judgment in favor of JVSC and ADMA appealed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
|
When S.N. was 14 years old, he began sexually abusing his cousin, who was 6 years old. He continued to molest her for a period of approximately three years. Years later, the abuse came to light, and, at 22 years of age, S.N. was charged with five counts of sexual abuse in the juvenile court. The court sustained the allegations, and committed him to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).
|
Plaintiff Jean Ndjongo sued his employer, defendant Los Angeles World Airports, alleging causes of action for retaliation, discrimination, and unlawful termination based on his race, color, national origin, age, disability, and medical condition. This is plaintiff’s third lawsuit against defendant, arising from conduct which had been resolved against plaintiff in the earlier lawsuits, first by nonsuit, and second by dismissal with prejudice following settlement and a release of all claims by plaintiff in exchange for a waiver of costs.
|
A jury convicted Thomas Andrew Hughes of the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of his wife Gloria, with the use of a deadly weapon and the infliction of great bodily injury. Witnesses at trial testified Hughes repeatedly hit Gloria in the head with a sledgehammer. We affirm his conviction.
|
Onaree Bee Rungtiwa and Blaine Snider (Appellants) appeal from the trial court’s order of dismissal following a partially successful demurrer to their complaint. Appellants purchased a residence from defendant Ocean Ridge Equities, LLC (ORE). Appellants claim that ORE breached the sales contract and that ORE along with other defendants committed various torts by misrepresenting the condition of the residence.
|
Jurors convicted defendant Leo Jerome Johnson of two counts of second degree murder, each with a firearm enhancement. The focus of this appeal is whether the trial court should have suppressed cell phone location and text messages obtained on the basis of a search warrant affidavit that not even the prosecutor defended with any gusto. Because most of this cell phone evidence inevitably would have been discovered, and admission of the remaining cell phone evidence was harmless error, we affirm the judgment of conviction. Although we affirm, this case serves as a reminder to law enforcement and the trial courts to scrutinize search warrant affidavits carefully in light of the important role they serve in protecting against unconstitutional searches and seizures.
|
4518 Hollywood LLC (Hollywood) appeals from a judgment following a default. Respondent Carlo LLC (Carlo) filed a complaint against Hollywood alleging a claim for forcible entry under Code of Civil Procedure section 1159, subdivision 2. Carlo obtained a default judgment when Hollywood failed to file a responsive pleading within five days of service as required under sections 1167 and 1167.3.
|
Green Mutual Property Investment (GM Property), Green Mutual Equity, Inc. (GM Equity), and Ock Kun Ro appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained demurrers to their third amended complaint without leave to amend in favor of Wilshire Bank (Wilshire), James Hyojin Ahn, and Robert Ahn.
Reviewing the demurrers de novo, we conclude that GM Equity and Ock Kun have failed to state a cause of action against any defendant. GM Property, however, has pleaded valid causes of action against the defendants and, therefore, the court erred in sustaining the demurrers against it. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment against GM Equity and Ock Kun and reverse the judgment as to GM Property. |
In 1999, defendant Michael G. McCaw entered into a plea bargain in New York in which he pleaded guilty to attempted third degree robbery. In 2011, McCaw was convicted of attempted manslaughter in California. The trial court found that McCaw’s 1999 New York conviction for attempted third degree robbery qualified as a serious felony and a strike under California law, and enhanced McCaw’s sentence accordingly. We have twice reversed the recidivism findings. In a third trial of the recidivism allegations, the court determined that the plea colloquy in connection with the New York conviction demonstrated the New York offense qualified as a serious felony and strike under California law.
|
The juvenile court denied family reunification services to Jeffrey C. (Father) for his infant son Jameson C. (Minor), based on three of the bypass provisions in Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b), and set a hearing under section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for Minor. Father filed a petition for extraordinary relief from the dependency court order, arguing that the factual predicates for two of the bypass provisions were not established by clear and convincing evidence. Father does not challenge the factual basis for applying the third, which rests on his conviction for a violent felony, but argues that the court should “look at” the length of time since the conviction and his desire to make things better for his child. He also argues that, even if the bypass provisions properly apply, the court should have found it in the best interest of Minor to provide reunification services. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the dependency cour
|
On October 7, 2016, Stanton Correctional Facility inmate and defendant Jayro Magana struggled with a correctional officer inside his cell. He was subsequently convicted by a jury of battery upon a custodial officer. Magana argues that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on a theory of self-defense and in excluding the testimony of a physician’s assistant who diagnosed him with a nasal contusion after the incident. We affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023