CA Unpub Decisions

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.

Defendant appeals from a dispositional order of the juvenile court removing him from the home of his parents and referring him for an out-of-home placement. Defendant’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, requesting the court to make an independent review of the record. Court found no issue warranting further briefing or review, and affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction for willful, deliberate, premeditated attempted murder. The trial court sentenced Alonzo to a term of life with the possibility of parole, plus 35 years to life in prison.
Defendant contends the trial court erred by: (1) admitting gang evidence; (2) allowing impeachment of a defense witness; and (3) imposing a 10-year-term on the gang enhancement. Court agreed that the trial court erred by imposing a 10-year sentence rather than a 15-year parole eligibility minimum on the gang enhancement, and modified the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, court affirmed.

The defendant was charged in count 1 with murder, in counts 2 and 3 with willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder; in count 4 with shooting at an occupied motor vehicle; and in count 5 with throwing a substance at a vehicle. The information also alleged as to count 1 that a principal used a firearm causing great bodily injury or death; as to counts 1, 2 and 3 that a principal used a firearm; and as to counts 2, 3 and 4 that defendant personally used a firearm. It was also alleged as to all counts that a principal used a firearm and that the crimes were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang. The information additionally alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of various felonies. On appeal, defendant claims juror misconduct, challenges the gang enhancements and claims error related to the failure to disclose filming of the K-9 unit at the scene for Animal Planet. The court strikes the gang enhancements imposed on counts 2 and 3. In all other respects, court affirms the judgment.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction for possession of a controlled substance in a jail facility. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of four years. Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his Wheeler/Batson motion and allowing him to be impeached with his prior convictions. Defendant also requests that court review the sealed record of the trial court’s Pitchess examination to determine whether the court abused its discretion by failing to order disclosure. Court affirmed.

This is a new installment in the fee dispute between two lawyers. In a prior installment, appellant sued respondent to collect payment for legal work appellant performed at respondent’s behest. Now, respondent has sued appellant--and appellant’s attorney--for malicious prosecution. Appellant and her attorney attempted to have Tolt’s malicious prosecution action stricken as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The trial court denied the motion. Court reversed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his convictions of four counts of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder, one count of firing into an occupied motor vehicle, and four counts of assault with a firearm. The jury also found true various allegations that a principal had used and discharged a firearm in the commission of the attempted murders and that the offenses were committed in association with or for the benefit of a street gang. The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of life for counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 and enhanced each base term with a determinate term of 20 years for the discharge of a firearm. On appeal, Defendant contends that (1) Officer’s expert opinion testimony was inadmissible and denied him due process because it addressed the ultimate facts in the case and thus invaded the province of the jury; (2) the prosecution’s use of irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence that the witnesses were fearful denied him a fair trial; (3) the trial court erred and denied him due process by permitting the parties to engage in further final argument after deliberation inquiries indicating that the jurors were confused about the legal concept of aiding and abetting. Judgment Affirmed.

Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of one count of residential burglary. The information filed by the District Attorney alleged two prior residential burglary convictions (serious felonies) and one prior prison term. The trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of 25 years to life, plus 10 years. Appellant appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 2.15, thus depriving him of his constitutional right of due process. Court rejected his contention and affirmed the conviction.

A businessman has sued a lawyer and law firm because of their professional representation of his adversaries. The lawyer and firm demurred on the ground that plaintiff failed to obtain court approval before filing his action, as is required by Civil Code section 1714.10. Plaintiff then brought a belated petition under section 1714.10, which the trial court denied. Court affirmed. Plaintiff has failed to establish (a) that this case falls within any exception to section 1714.10, and (b) that he can prevail in this action.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted appellant's motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 with respect to appellant’s action for breach of contract and specific performance against Defendant. Defendant appeals from the trial court’s order awarding Defendant attorney fees in the amount of $8,100. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the trial court’s orders denying extensions of time to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond, claiming the trial court abused its discretion. Court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion because appellant failed to show good cause for additional extensions of time.

Plaintiffs appealed an award of attorney fees and costs. Court rejected appellants’ request to vacate the award due to the purported disqualification of the trial judge. Court agreed, however, that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees, because the motion for costs was untimely.

Appellant was sentenced to prison for the two-year lower term after a jury convicted her of first degree residential burglary under an aiding and abetting theory. Appellant argues that her conviction was improperly based on "guilt by association" because the jury heard evidence that her co-defendant had committed several prior burglaries. Court affirmed.

Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine base, and possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both counts. The defendant admitted his 1992 residential burglary conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to a total term of four years in state prison: the midterm of two years for the base term as to count 1, doubled. As to count 2, the court imposed a $100 fine and suspended payment of the fine. Appellant appeals from the judgment on the grounds that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the defendant’s presumption of innocence and the burden of proof (CALJIC No. 2.90). Court reversed.