CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals from an order granting respondent’s motion for monetary sanctions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (j) (hereafter § 437c(j)). Appellant contends that the trial court erred because: (1) Appellant failed to meet the procedural requirements of section 1008, and (2) attorney’s fees are not recoverable as sanctions under section 437c(j). Because respondent did not comply with the reconsideration statute, court reversed.

Appellant prevails on virtually all of its claims and successfully defends against the cross-complaint brought by respondent. In ruling in appellant's favor, the trial court finds respondent to have been deceitful and disloyal and that appellant had the right to terminate respondent for his acts of bad faith while in its employ. Nonetheless, the trial court denied appellant's motion for attorney fees, finding that it was not a prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717 and Labor Code section 218.5. Appellant appeals from the order denying its motion for attorney fees. Court reversed.

Defendant appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their cause of action for an unfair business practice injunction. The trial court enjoined SBCH from performing electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) treatments because it used inadequate patient consent forms and had an unauthorized ECT review process. Proposition 64 amends the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by requiring new standing requirements. Court concluded Proposition 64 is applicable here. Court reversed and remanded with instructions that the trial court: 1) determine whether the defendant should be allowed to amend their complaint and 2) decide SBCH's claim that there is no current need for an injunction.

In this appeal, defendant claims the court abused its discretion excluding evidence of the victim’s prior convictions for purposes of impeachment. Defendant also asserts instructional error. In his appeal and in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, he claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirmed the judgment and denied the writ petition.

Appellant used a handgun to rob two grocery stores. Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of five counts of second degree robbery with enhancements for firearm use, discharge of a firearm and a prior conviction of a serious felony. Appellant was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term of 66 years 4 months. Appellant argues that the case must be remanded for resentencing because (1) the court imposed upper term and consecutive sentences based on facts neither admitted by him nor found true by the jury; (2) the court abused its discretion when it imposed consecutive rather than concurrent sentences on three of the robbery counts; and (3) the court erred when it ordered him to pay victim restitution to Vons Markets based on its payment of workers' compensation benefits to its employee victims of the robberies. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from judgments entered after a jury convicted them of conspiracy to commit robbery, two counts of second degree robbery, and special circumstances (robbery-murder) first-degree murder. Defendant was also convicted of two counts of assault on a peace officer and evading an officer. The jury found that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death during the commission of the murder and robberies, and convicted him on a separate count of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Appellants raise numerous contentions which are rejected with one exception: the trial court erred in ordering them to pay parole revocation fines. Court struke the parole revocation fines and affirmed the judgments as modified.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for misdemeanor obstruction or delay of a peace officer. Appellant argues the court erred in refusing his special jury instructions that “slow compliance” with an officer’s commands and refusing to answer an officer’s questions are not unlawful interference with the officer’s performance of his duties. Court affirmed.

Appellant was convicted by jury of one count of carjacking. The jury found not true the allegation that he had personally used a handgun in the commission of the offense. Appellant was sentenced to the middle term of five years in state prison. Appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Court affirmed.

Following a four-day administrative hearing, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) fired Appellant from his position as a permanent certificated teacher. Appellant thereafter sought relief in the superior court by filing a petition for a writ of mandate. The trial court denied the petition. This pro per appeal by appellant follows. Court affirmed.

A modification decision.

Mother’s children were removed from her home. Mother appeals the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders removing daughters from her custody. Mother claims the evidence was insufficient to support either jurisdiction or the disposition. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine base for sale, with an admission of a prior drug conviction. The trial court sentenced Hernandez to five years imprisonment. Defendant requested the court to independently review the record. Judgment affirmed.

Defendant pled no contest to possessing marijuana for sale and admitted a prior serious felony conviction under the Three Strikes law. Defendant was sentenced to six years in prison as specified in his plea agreement.
Defendant requested the court to independently review the record. Judgment affirmed.

Defendant prowled in dozens of backyards, peered through windows, and entered four or five houses over a period of two years looking for money and taking pictures of young teenage girls. West Sacramento police arrested defendant on August 23, 2004, after a 13-year-old victim awoke to find him standing beside her bed.
The Yolo County District Attorney charged defendant with 13 counts and related special allegations arising from his conduct in each home. The jury found defendant guilty on all but three counts and found true all but one special allegation. On appeal, defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to show: (1) he entertained the specific intent to commit a forcible lewd act against minors as alleged in counts 1 and 7; (2) Minor was under the age of 14; and (3) he touched another minor. Defendant also contends the trial court violated his constitutional rights by preventing him from presenting closing argument on the issue of intent. Judgment Affirmed.