CA Unpub Decisions

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked and terminated defendant’s probation and sentenced him to state prison. Court affirmed.

Defendant petitions for a writ of prohibition directing the court to vacate its order denying his motion to discover the identity of a confidential informant (CI) for the FBI. But only the FBI knew the CI’s identity, and it refused to disclose it. Thus, the prosecution lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the CI’s identity. The court cannot compel the prosecution to produce information it does not have and cannot obtain. Court denied the petition.

A jury found appellant guilty of two counts of lewd conduct with a child and one count of attempting to dissuade a victim from reporting a crime. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to one count of kidnapping. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in its answer to a jury question and in failing to give a unanimity instruction as to one count. Appellant and respondent agree that the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect that appellant was convicted by a jury. Court ordered the abstract of judgment modified and affirmed the judgment.

The People appeal from the order of the superior court granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus of petitioner. The superior court concluded that petitioner was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel during the appeal of his conviction of various domestic violence offenses, requiring the reversal of the finding that petitioner personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. Order Reversed and Remanded.

Appellant carried homeowners insurance through California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau (CSAA). When appellant asserted various claims under his CSAA policy for roof leak damages and for clean-up of sewage and mold damages to his home and personal property, CSAA retained San Jose attorney Ronald J. Cook, an attorney with the firm Willoughby, Stuart & Bening, to assist it in the adjustment of appellant’s claims. In the complaint, which is the subject of this appeal, appellant contends attorney Cook and his law firm committed various torts when helping to adjust his claim. The attorney and his firm filed a motion for summary judgment arguing they were entitled to prevail as a matter of law. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. In this appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred when it granted the motion. Court disagreed and affirmed.

Appellant pled guilty to one count of first degree robbery and admitted one prior prison commitment in exchange for the dismissal of another charge and other prison term allegations. Appellante later filed a motion to withdraw that plea on the basis of allegedly newly-discovered evidence. That motion, and a subsequent verbal motion by his counsel to withdraw as counsel, were both denied. This appeal is from those denials. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for battery, with serious bodily injury, with an enhancement for the personal infliction of great bodily injury. Defendant was sentenced to two years in state prison. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not permitting an additional argument after it provided the jury with supplemental instructions during deliberation. Defendant also contends that two of the supplemental instructions given by the trial court -- CALJIC Nos. 5.54 and 5.55 -- were incorrect statements of the law. He further contends that the court must remand the matter for resentencing because the trial court erred when it found defendant presumptively ineligible for probation. Defendant also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the trial court reduce defendant’s conviction to a misdemeanor.
Finding no error, court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff appeals the judgment dismissing her complaint following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of respondent North Star Security Services, Inc. (North Star). Plaintiff contends that since she has acted in pro. per. throughout the duration of the case, the court should be more lenient toward her and afford her another opportunity to fix the mistakes that have prevented this case from moving forward in the trial court. Court affirms the dismissal.

Defendant appeals from an order revoking his probation and imposing a suspended eight-year prison sentence. Defendant contends that the court violated his right to due process by relying on unreliable reports at the sentencing hearing. Court affirmed.

The People appeal from an order dismissing an information against defendant, an inmate in state prison, on the ground that the delay in filing a criminal complaint against him violated his due process right to a fair trial. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s ruling. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the imposition of drug- and alcohol-related conditions of probation following his guilty plea to a charge of felony failure to appear. In the underlying case in which defendant failed to appear, defendant was charged with receiving stolen property, possession of methamphetamine for sale, and transportation of methamphetamine. Defendant contends the court erred in including as conditions of his probation alcohol-related abstinence and testing requirements since there was no proof that alcohol was involved in his charged offenses, or that defendant had a problem with alcohol. Defendant also objects to a requirement that he undergo a drug and alcohol assessment to determine whether defendant should be ordered to participate in drug court. The court agreed that the drug and alcohol assessment condition, and related reservation of jurisdiction to order defendant into drug court, were unauthorized and must be stricken. In all other respects, court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals from the trial court order for recommitment to the State Department of Mental Health (DMH) pursuant to a jury verdict that he is a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (the Act). Defendant maintains that the trial court committed reversible error in (1) permitting experts to testify about findings of a nontestifying expert and (2) admitting into evidence the report of that expert. Appellant further asserts that he was denied a fair trial because of pervasive instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Court affirmed.

After a plea of no contest to one count of embezzlement, the court found appellant guilty of that count and sentenced him to the lower term of 16 months in state prison. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and then a brief pursuant to People v. Wende asking that this court review the record and determine if there are any issues in the case that deserve further briefing. Court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a dispositional order of probation on conditions including a suspended nine-month ranch commitment, electronic monitoring, and four weekends in the juvenile hall. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing a suspended nine-month ranch commitment after finding that the maximum term of confinement was eight months. The Attorney General concedes the error. Court modified the judgment to reflect a suspended eight-month ranch commitment.