CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant entered guilty pleas to single counts of willfully evading a pursuing peace officer and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation, on condition that he serve 90 days in jail and pay various fines, fees, and penalty assessments. Defendant requested the court independently review the record. Court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Judgment affirmed.

After plaintiff was rejected during probation from his job with defendant, he filed a complaint charging defendant with unlawful discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and this appeal is taken from the ensuing judgment. Plaintiff contends triable issues of fact remain on his complaint. Court disagreed, and therefore affirmed the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Angelo of first and second degree robbery and two counts of kidnapping to commit robbery. The jury also found true allegations defendant personally used a firearm in connection with the second degree robbery and the kidnapping to commit that robbery. Defendant requested an independent review of the record. Judgment Affirmed.

In December 2004, defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to evade a peace officer with willful or wanton disregard, a felony and driving with a suspended license, a misdemeanor, and pleaded no contest to violating a court order, a misdemeanor. Defendant also admitted two prior convictions for driving with a suspended license.
Defendant requested the court independently review the record. The judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiffs sued defendants for medical negligence and loss of consortium following Plaintiff’s surgery in July 2001. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lodi Memorial Hospital (the Hospital) in January 2005, concluding that plaintiffs’ action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs did not appeal from the judgment entered on that ruling. Five months later, Dr. Dodd successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing: (1) the judgment in favor of the Hospital applied equally to him under principles of collateral estoppel; and (2) there was no triable issue of fact with regard to plaintiffs’ actual and constructive knowledge of their injury more than one year before they gave notice of intent to file their complaint.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend the judgment in favor of the Hospital is no bar to their action against Dr. Dodd and the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the truth of its earlier finding. Plaintiffs also argue a triable issue of material fact exists as to when the cause of action accrued against Dr. Dodd. Even if the court were to agree with plaintiffs that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the time of discovery, court concluded the court was bound by its earlier ruling that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant pleaded no contest to false imprisonment. In exchange, three related counts were dismissed. defendant was sentenced to state prison for 16 months, awarded 409 days of custody credit and 204 days of conduct credit (thus satisfying the prison term), and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine and a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked.
Court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Judgment affirmed.

A modification decision.

A jury convicted of first degree residential burglary. In a subsequent proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that defendant had been convicted of two serious felony prior offenses, each of which constituted a strike. The court sentenced Ranson to 18 years in prison. Defendant appeals, contending that his conviction must be reversed on three separate grounds: (i) the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence; (ii) the prosecutor improperly vouched for the prosecution witnesses in closing argument; and (iii) Ranson received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court found defendant's contentions to be without merit. Judgment Affirmed.

After the court denied a motion to suppress evidence, defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance for sale and admitted a prior strike. Included in the plea agreement was defendant's waiver of his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, issues related to the prior strike and the stipulated sentence. The court denied defendant's request to dismiss the prior strike and to withdraw the guilty plea and sentenced him to a stipulated six years in prison: double the three-year lower term for possessing a controlled substance for sale with a prior strike. Defendant requested an independent review of the record. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant was charged with eight felony counts based on incidents where he allegedly harassed his former girlfriend, destroyed property in her garage, and resisted arrest. Appellant was found guilty of felony resisting an officer by the use of force or violence, and misdemeanor vandalism. The court found he suffered three prior strike convictions, denied his motion to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor, denied his request to dismiss the prior strike conviction, and imposed the third strike term of 25 years to life. On appeal, Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence he used force or violence to resist the officers and the court abused its discretion when it denied his motions to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor and dismiss the strikes. His primary issue, however, concerns the means by which the court found his prior felony convictions were serious felonies and strikes. Court found substantial evidence to support appellant’s felony conviction, and that the court did not abuse its sentencing discretion when it imposed the third strike term. Court also find the trial court correctly found appellant’s 1991 prior convictions were serious felonies within the meaning of the three strikes law, based on the nature of his guilty pleas and admissions in that case.

Defendant was sentenced to nine years in prison after pleading guilty to transportation for sale of cocaine, transportation of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for sale, possession of a smoking device and possession of ammunition by a felon. Appellant appeals from the denial of his suppression motion contending that law enforcement officers were not justified in detaining him. Court affirmed.

Defendant was charged with possessing marijuana for the purposes of sale. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. At sentencing the court granted probation but ordered that he serve one year in jail. Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the ruling denying the motion to suppress, however, his sole contention on appeal is that the sentencing court erred when it ordered him to pay fees for preparation of the presentence report and probation supervision. Court affirmed.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court granted the People’s motion to dismiss the balance of the information. The court, finding factors in aggravation outweighed those in mitigation, and sentenced appellant to the upper term of four years in state prison. Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the imposition of the upper term deprived him of his federal and state constitutional rights to a jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and his right to due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Court disagreed with his contention and affirmed the judgment.

In a complaint filed in Tuolumne County Superior Court (limited jurisdiction), petitioner was charged with misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a) (count 1), and violation of section 23152, subdivision (c) (count 2). Two prior convictions were alleged pursuant to sections 23540 and 23542 and/or sections 23546 and 23548: violation of section 23152, subdivision (a) on October 15, 1996; violation of section 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b) on August 11, 1999. The present petition was filed on July 26, 2006. On August 4, 2006, this court issued the following order:
“Sentencing in Tuolumne County Superior Court action No. CRM20426, presently set for August 8, 2006, is stayed pending determination of the petition for writ of mandate in the above entitled action, or until further order of this court.”
Petitioner argues respondent erred in denying the petition for writ of mandate filed with the appellate division of the superior court because he ruled in his capacity as a single superior court judge, rather than as a member of an appellate division panel. Court agreed. Court held that Petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief. A peremptory writ of mandate is proper and should be issued.