CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals from a judgment imposed after his plea of no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Defendant contends his agreement to register as a sex offender is contrary to public policy, and that the court’s failure to order a probation report was prejudicial error. Court agreed with his second point and remanded for resentencing.

On May 4, 2006, defendant, who was 16-years-old at the time of the incident, was adjudged a ward of the court and ordered to serve two weekends at juvenile hall. The court imposed the standard conditions of probation and additional terms, including that defendant complete 150 hours of community service, pay restitution to the victim of $300, and pay a restitution fine of $200. Counsel appointed for defendant has asked this court to independently examine the record to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Court conducted that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirmed.

A superior court ordered a competency evaluation found petitioner not competent to stand trial or to cooperate. Petitioner was committed to Patton State Hospital on August 11, 2005. Petitioner was later found competent to stand trial and cooperate with counsel. Petitioner plead no contest to count one, driving under the influence, with three or more prior convictions for similar offenses. All remaining counts and prior convictions were dismissed or stricken. Petitioner entered the plea with the understanding that he would receive a sentence of no more than three years.
On July 20, 2006, petitioner filed in this court an application for permission to seek a belated certificate of probable cause in the Kern County Superior Court. This court granted the application on August 8, 2006. The request was promptly filed and the Kern County Superior Court denied the request on August 16, 2006. The instant petition challenges the denial of the request. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Kern County Superior Court to reverse its denial order and grant petitioner’s request for a certificate of probable cause.

Petitioner was the biological father of minor. The dependency court denied petitioner’s request for presumed father status and family reunification services and set the proceeding for a permanency planning hearing. Petitioner filed a petition for extraordinary writ review. Court grant the writ.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder but deadlocked on the issue of sanity. Following a declaration of mistrial, a second jury found him sane. At the sanity trial, the jury was informed that defendant had been found guilty of premeditated murder and that fact was argued by the prosecutor as bearing on defendant’s sanity. This court affirmed the judgment. California Supreme Court denied review.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, this court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to first degree robbery in concert and admitted that a principal was armed, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations and a sentencing lid of four years. The court imposed the previously suspended four-year state prison sentence. Defendant appeals.
The judgment is modified, dismissing the remaining counts and awarding five conduct days for a total of 44 days of presentence custody credit. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect five conduct days and a total of 44 days of presentence custody credit and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Appellant petitions for extraordinary relief from a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and scheduling a permanency planning hearing for her daughter. Patricia challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s order; she seeks return of the child to her custody and continuation of reunification services. Real Party in Interest Del Norte County Department of Health and Social Services (the agency) opposes the petition. Court denied the petition on the merits.

Appellant appeals from a judgment on reserved issues in this dissolution action. Husband and respondent Wife had been married for over ten years before their separation in March 2001. There were two minor children of the marriage. The parties’ marital status terminated on December 30, 2002, and a judgment of dissolution as to status only was filed January 3, 2003. The judgment from which Husband appeals was entered October 15, 2004.The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a further hearing in accordance with this decision. Wife is awarded costs on appeal.

Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support one of his robbery convictions. Appellant argues that the admission of defendant’s redacted confession violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and constituted Aranda-Bruton error. Appellant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his severance motion, and that even if it did not abuse its discretion, reversal is still required because gross unfairness resulted. Court affirmed both judgments.

Appellant was convicted with first degree burglary, having a concealed firearm in a vehicle, carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm, and receiving stolen property. Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment totaling six years and eight months. Appellant appeals contending that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury with CALJIC Nos. 2.70 and 2.72, which would have informed it, respectively, that evidence of a defendant’s oral admissions or confession must be viewed “‘with caution,’” and that the corpus delicti of a crime must be proved independently of the defendant’s admissions or confession. Judgment Affirmed..

Appellant appeals from an order approving a first and final account and allowance for statutory fees and costs, arguing California’s spousal set-aside law requires a different result. Appellant also appeals the denial of her new trial motion. Respondent requests sanctions for the cost of defending what he claims is a frivolous appeal. Court dismissed the appeal from the order denying her new trial motion, affirmed the order approving the Final Account and Report, and denied the request for sanctions.

In December 1999, a corporation called Maximum Holdings ("Maximum") merged with and into another corporation, DVD Express ("DVD"). In March 2001, the surviving entity, called Express.com, filed for bankruptcy. This litigation, by DVD stockholders against Maximum officers and investors and its merger lawyers, soon followed. The complaint brought causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and alleged that the defendants made numerous fraudulent misrepresentations and withheld relevant information in order to induce DVD to merge with Maximum and to induce DVD's majority shareholder, plaintiff, to vote for the merger.
The trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that a November 2000 release barred plaintiff's causes of action against defendants and that there were no triable issues of material fact on his causes of action against the remaining defendants. The court also found that the other plaintiffs had no standing to sue any of the defendants because their claims were derivative. (The court did not decide the issue of Dubelko's standing.) The court entered judgment in favor of all defendants. This court affirmede, and thus need not reach plaintiff's and Geocapital's challenge to the trial court finding of jury waiver.
Sullivan & Cromwell cross-complained against the former directors of DVD for equitable indemnity. The cross-complaint was dismissed after demurrer. Sullivan & Cromwell has appealed from that ruling, asking court to proceed with the appeal only if court reversed the judgment in its favor on the complaint. Sullivan & Cromwell's appeal is thus dismissed as moot.

A jury convicted appellant of stalking Anna Guzzetti, attempted kidnapping of and making a criminal threat with findings of deadly weapon use, and possession of cocaine. Appellant was acquitted of attempted kidnapping of Ms. Guzzetti and attempted kidnapping of Ms. Garcia with intent to commit rape. The court found that appellant had suffered four prior serious felony and strike convictions . Sentenced to a term of 81 years to life, appellant contends that: (1) substantial evidence does not support the convictions for stalking and cocaine possession; (2) three of the prior, non-California convictions do not qualify as strikes or serious felonies; and (3) the sentence constitutes unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Court reversed the stalking conviction, but affirmed the rest of the judgment.

Respondent sued insurance company for coverage of roof damage under an “all risks” insurance policy. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Respondent. The court found that the predominant or "efficient proximate cause" of the roof damage was faulty workmanship in constructing the roof itself. Therefore, the cost of repairing the roof was an excluded cost of repairing faulty workmanship, and not a cost of repairing other damage that resulted from faulty workmanship.
Appellant appeals the judgment. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in the determination of the "efficient proximate cause" of the loss, and incorrectly imposed the burden of proving application of the exception to the exclusion on appellant. Court affirmed.