CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals an order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and recommitting him to the Department of Mental Health for treatment. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiff. Defendant claims the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication of plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of contract and money had and received, in that there are triable issues of fact as to her affirmative defenses of illegality of the contract, laches and impossibility of performance, and Defendant does not have any money Defendant received from Hospital. Court disagreeed and affirmed the judgment.

In these cross appeals, the defendants, individually and as trustees of the Cooper-Colletti Trust, appeal from a judgment entered against them after the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a dismissal of the case was granted and a judgment entered to enforce one of two written settlement agreements. That relief was granted to the plaintiff pursuant to a motion brought under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 664.6. Defendants contend plaintiff’s section 473 motion to vacate was not timely brought and plaintiff’s section 664.6 motion lacked an enforceable settlement agreement because (1) no agreement was ever finalized and (2) Colletti’s signature on it was signed by Cooper. The court found no merit to any of those contentions.

Plaintiff has cross-appealed and challenges the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs associated with its motion. The settlement agreement has a provision for an award of fees and costs to the prevailing party in a section 664.6 motion brought to enforce its terms. Court found that the trial court erred in denying fees and costs to plaintiff. Court amended the judgment to provide for fees and costs, affirmed the judgment as amended, and remanded the case for a determination of a reasonable amount of trial and appellate court fees and costs.

Plaintiffs rented houses in Topanga Canyon owned by the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation. When the Department decided to expand a nearby state park by converting the area in which the houses were located to parkland, it offered plaintiffs statutorily-required relocation expenses. Plaintiffs filed administrative challenges seeking higher relocation payments. After contested hearings an administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded some of the plaintiffs greater amounts than, and some others the same amounts as, the Department’s original offers. Plaintiffs then filed administrative mandamus petitions in the trial court challenging the awards. The court denied the petitions and entered judgment for the Department.

A minor, appeals from the order of wardship entered following determinations that minor resisted an executive officer and two counts of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer. The court ordered appellant placed home on probation. Judgment affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of second degree murder, assault on a child under eight years of age causing death, and four counts of child abuse. As to the four counts of child abuse, the jury found true the allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on a child under the age of five. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of 25 years to life plus a consecutive term of 21 years. On appeal, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his four convictions for child abuse; the trial court erred in denying his request for an instruction on voluntary intoxication; and imposition of the upper term sentence on one of the counts of child abuse, based on facts not found by the jury, violated his constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Court affirmed the judgments of conviction and modified the sentence.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after defendant pled no contest to second degree commercial burglary and admitted one prior strike conviction. Having obtained a certificate of probable cause, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss this case. Court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon. The jury also found true the allegations that defendant had two prior serious or violent felony convictions and two prior serious felony convictions, and had served seven prior prison terms. The trial court struck one of defendant's prior strike convictions pursuant to section 1385. Defendant was sentenced to 14 years in state prison, consisting of the low term of two years on the assault conviction, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law, plus five years on each of the two prior serious felony convictions. The court also imposed one year for each of the prior prison term enhancements, and ordered the seven years to run concurrent with his sentence on the assault conviction. Defendant contends (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct; and (3) sentencing error. Court remanded for resentencing on the prior prison term findings. Otherwise, court affirmed.

Appellant appeals from a judgment following the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award in favor of respondent. CFI claims that the arbitrator made various legal and factual errors and violated CFI’s due process rights. Court rejected all of CFI’s contentions and affirmed judgment.

Appellant pled no contest to corporal injury on a cohabitant and admitted a great bodily injury enhancement. The court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of eight years, the middle term of four years on the substantive offense and the middle term of four years on the enhancement.
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked the court to independently review the record. Appellant did not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. Following review, judgment affirmed.

Defendant appeals from orders terminating her parental rights to her three minor children. Appellant does not dispute the court’s decision. Instead, she asks this court to review a sealed transcript of an in camera conversation between her adolescent daughter and the trial judge which occurred after he made his findings and orders to terminate parental rights. Order Affirmed.

A jury found Defendant guilty of first degree murder, kidnapping, felony hit-and-run driving causing death, and insurance fraud, and found defendant sane at the time he committed the crimes. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for new trial and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life with a concurrent five-year term for insurance fraud. On appeal, defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to object to the admission at trial of his statements made to mental health professionals during court-ordered competency evaluations; that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the special mental state required for kidnapping unconscious people, and by failing to sua sponte give instructions on the mistake of fact defense; and that the trial court improperly considered aggravating factors in determining his sentence in violation of his state and federal rights to a jury trial and due process and contends he is entitled to two additional days of conduct credits. The court concluded that none of these contentions have merit. The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded solely for a new sanity trial. The verdicts from the guilt trial remain in full force and effect pending the outcome of the sanity trial.

The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit after determining her claims were barred by res judicata because Little had dismissed an earlier small claims action involving the same issues. Appellant contends she received no notice before trial that defendants would raise res judicata as a defense, and the trial court should have given her the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence before dismissing her complaint. Judgment Reversed.

Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for attorney fees after they prevailed on a complaint for breach of a contract containing a term providing for an award of fees. They contend the court erred in requiring evidence of fees incurred in addition to what they provided. They also assert the fact that they denied the existence of the contract at trial did not foreclose their recovery of fees. Court agreed and reversed.