CA Unpub Decisions

The action below was originally resolved by a settlement requiring defendants to make annual installment payments to plaintiffs. Defendants defaulted on an installment payment, causing an increase in, and an acceleration of, the debt. Based on the default, plaintiffs moved the trial court for an order entering a judgment pursuant to the default procedures in the settlement agreement. Defendants responded with, inter alia, a motion asserting an offset against any amounts allegedly in default, based on a separate judgment that they had obtained against respondents and an uninvolved third party. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for entry of judgment and denied defendants’ motion asserting an offset.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered following an order revoking probation and sentencing him to six years in prison. Previously, appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and admitted he had served three prior prison terms. Appellant contends that the high-term sentence imposed must be reversed because that sentence was based upon factual determinations by the court and thus denied him his right to a jury trial.

Defendants appeal from judgments entered after a jury trial in which both defendants were convicted of first degree murder and were further convicted of attempted murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle. Court reversed the trial court’s action in imposing and staying punishment for the gang allegation on count 1 as to both defendants. Court directed the trial court to prepare corrected abstracts of the judgments in accordance with the terms of this decision. Court affirmed the judgments in all other respects.

Defendant appeals an order determining his incapacity to consent to mental health treatment, and directing involuntary treatment with medications. Appellant claims that there is insufficient evidence to support the order, and that it violates his equal protection rights by permitting involuntary medication for a period in excess of six months. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from judgments entered following his guilty plea in case number PA047259 to second degree burglary with his admission that the amount of loss was over $150,000 and his guilty plea in case number PA046313 to receiving stolen property with his admission that the loss was in excess of $150,000. In case number PA047259, he was sentenced to four years in prison, consisting of the middle term of two years, enhanced by an additional two years. In case number PA046313, the court imposed the middle term of two years in state prison, concurrent to the sentence in case number PA047259. Court examined the entire record and is satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and the courts review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgments entered against him in this case.

Defendants appeal from a judgment of the superior court granting a writ of mandate and ordering the District to provide petitioners seniority and tenure rights that they held in their previous positions as employees of the Los Angeles County Office of Education (County). Court reversed.

The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) appeals an order directing payment of sanctions in the amount of $200 for failure to complete an adoptive home study on prospective adoptive parents in a timely manner. The Department contends the sanction order must be reversed because the failure to file the home study by the due date was attributable to factors beyond its control. Court found no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s imposition of reasonable monetary sanctions. Consequently, court affirmed the order.

This appeal is taken from an order denying the motion of the County of Los Angeles (County), erroneously sued as appellants, to disqualify respondent’s counsel, and her law firm, from representing respondent in this action against the County. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals an order committing him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) following his conviction of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Court concluded that the trial court properly found 1) Defendant received 90 days of treatment for his disorder and 2) his schizoaffective condition qualifies as a severe mental disorder under the MDO law. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals a judgment after conviction of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle, receiving stolen property, carjacking with a finding of personal firearm use, and two counts of second degree robbery. Defendant argues that his carjacking conviction violates due process of law because it rests upon unreliable and uncorroborated identification testimony; that there is insufficient evidence that he used a firearm during commission of the carjacking; and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his pretrial motion to sever the counts because three criminal incidents were involved, the evidence was not cross-admissible, and the evidence of the carjacking was "weak." Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant challenges the decision of the juvenile court sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against him on the ground that his motion to suppress was improperly denied. Court agreed. The juvenile court struck the only evidence that established a reasonable suspicion that appellant violated a school rule or the law, leaving the search without justification. Judgment Reversed.

Appellant contends that the trial court’s order should be reversed because: (1) respondent did not show a probability of success on the abuse of process claim; (2) the litigation privilege barred the abuse of process claim; (3) respondent did not show a probability of success on the malicious prosecution claim; and (4) the abuse of process and malicious prosecution causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to strike is reversed.

Appellant challenges the decision of the juvenile court sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against her on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient, a probation condition is vague, and the trial court erred by setting a maximum confinement term. Court concluded substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that appellant committed a robbery. Although the juvenile court eliminated any vagueness problem by adding a knowledge element to the probation condition in question, the minute order should be modified to conform. The court was not required to set a maximum confinement term because appellant was not removed from the physical custody of her mother. Although the term has no legal effect and does not prejudice appellant, the court agrees that it should be deleted from the minute order.

In this dispute over real property between two brothers for constructive trust and other forms of relief, plaintiff appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained the demurrer of defendant without leave to amend. Court reversed the judgment of dismissal.