CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant was found guilty of robbery. In bifurcated trials, the court found Defendant guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon, and subsequently found true allegations he had served two prior prison terms for six felony convictions and that all six of those prior felony convictions had constituted both serious felony priors and strike priors. The court sentenced Defendant to 60 years to life in prison, consecutive to a 25-year-to-life term he was already serving on a Los Angeles case.
Defendant appeals, contending the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 because there was no actual or apparent consent given to search the hotel room in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and there was insufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction. Court affirmed.

This is the third time appellant has brought an appeal arising from his malpractice claims against his former physicians. As with his first two appeals, appellant's third appeal is without merit.
The litigation underlying these appeals began six years ago when appellant sued defendants, alleging medical malpractice and other claims. Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment, and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. Appellant then moved to vacate the judgment, claiming the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because it did not comply with the summary judgment statute and there was extrinsic fraud. The trial court denied the motion, and court affirmed this order in a second unpublished opinion.
Appellant then brought a second motion to vacate the judgment, again claiming the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because it did not comply with the summary judgment statute (although on a different ground) and there was extrinsic fraud. The trial court denied this motion. Appellant now appeals from this denial. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals the judgment terminating their parental rights over their children They contend the juvenile court erred by finding the children adoptable, declining to apply the sibling relationship exception to termination of their parental rights, and declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination of Appellant's parental rights. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Aappellant asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. The Court held that a review pursuant to People v. Wende is unavailable in this case. Appeal dismissed.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of six counts of assault with a firearm on a peace officer. The jury also found true the allegation that Defendant personally used a semiautomatic rifle and personally and intentionally discharged the same. Defendant also admitted that he committed count 6 while released from custody on a pending felony charge within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.1. As a result, the trial court sentenced Defendant to a total term of 36 years 8 months in state prison and ordered him to pay $4,000 in restitution.
Defendant appeals, arguing that the lack of direct evidence proving defendant shot at the peace officers demonstrates the evidence of his guilt is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his convictions. Additionally, defendant argues that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel due to (a) her failure to file a pretrial motion to dismiss and/or a motion to suppress based on defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure, and (b) her failure to impeach key state witnesses. Court disagreed and affirmed.

This appeal examines respondeat superior liability in the context of Defendant's driver’s scope of employment. The issue is whether a Defendant's driver was acting in the course and scope of his employment when, while at home on a Friday evening, the driver divulged a customer’s address to a stranger who thereafter murdered that customer.
Plaintiff, the murder victim’s mother, filed a complaint against Defendant and others seeking to hold the defendants legally responsible for the injuries caused by the murderer’s violent criminal conduct. The trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that there was no breach of duty attributable to defendant. The court concluded that the driver was acting outside the course and scope of his Defendant's employment when he allegedly disclosed the victim’s address. Judgment Affirmed.

In his first trial, a jury convicted appellant of first degree murder, felony false imprisonment, torture, and kidnapping. The jury further found true allegations that a principal was armed with a handgun and an assault rifle during commission of the crimes, and that appellant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon during the commission of torture. Appellant was sentenced to a total term of 34 years to life in prison. On appeal, court reversed the murder conviction due to instructional error, afforded the district attorney the opportunity to retry the murder count, and affirmed the remaining convictions. br /> The district attorney elected to retry appellant on the reversed count. A jury again convicted appellant of first degree murder, and found true allegations that a principal was personally armed with an assault rifle and a handgun during commission of the crime. Appellant was sentenced to a nine-year term on count 4 and the attendant enhancements, a concurrent two-year term on count 2, a consecutive term of 25 years to life in prison on count 1, and a concurrent term of life plus one year on count 3. Defendant now appeals, challenging both his murder conviction and a portion of his sentence. Court conclude the murder conviction must again be reversed.

Respondent, moved to modify the terms of a permanent injunction on the ground of changed circumstances under Civil Code section 3424. The court denied the motion finding that the test for changed circumstances had not been met.
Appellant filed a motion for attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party under section 1717. This motion was also denied. The court found that in opposing an attempt to modify an injunction, appellant could not be deemed to be enforcing the stipulated judgment that granted the permanent injunction. Appellant contends the trial court erred. According to appellant, a motion to modify an injunction that was issued pursuant to a contract is an action on a contract.
As discussed below, the trial court was correct. Defendant’s statutory claim was not related to the stipulated judgment. Order affirmed.

A jury convicted appellant of second degree robbery and found true an enhancement allegation that in committing that offense appellant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon. On that same date, appellant admitted violating probation in two separate cases; he pled no contest to two counts of the offense commonly known as petty theft with a prior, charged in two other cases; and he admitted an enhancement allegation that he had previously served a prison term for a prior felony conviction, as alleged in those two cases. The court imposed a prison term of seven years, a restitution fine of $7,000 and a “parole revocation restitution fine” in the same amount. The court stayed the latter fine pending successful completion of parole. On appeal, appellant contends (1) the court erred prejudicially in instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.27; (2) portions of the restitution and parole revocation fines were unauthorized; and (3) the abstract of judgment contains a clerical error, which should be corrected. Court reduced the fines and ordered the abstract of judgment corrected as discussed below, and in all other respects affirmed.

A jury convicted appellant of indecent exposure and found true allegations that appellant had suffered two prior convictions of section 288a, subdivision (c) and six “strikes,” and served a single prison term for multiple prior felony convictions. The court imposed a prison term of 26 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life on the substantive offense, pursuant to the three strikes law, and one year on the prior prison term enhancement. The court ordered the term to be served consecutively with a sentence appellant was serving in another case.
On appeal, appellant contends that appellant’s conviction of indecent exposure was improperly punished as a felony. Court agreed, and remanded for resentencing.

The juvenile court found 13-year-old appellant committed a misdemeanor by exhibiting a deadly weapon in a rude, angry, and threatening manner. Appellant contends the prosecution failed to establish that he understood the wrongfulness of his conduct, possessed a deadly weapon, or was not acting in self-defense. Court affirmed the disposition.

After independent review of the record in a misdemeanor hit-and-run case, the court concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists. Judgment Affirmed.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her son and daughter. Court deny the petition.

Plaintiff is a former law student dismissed from Whittier College School of Law (Whittier) after a disciplinary hearing board received evidence from faculty and students about bizarre, disruptive, and threatening behavior. Plaintiff sued Whittier for various causes of action, including violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), slander, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also joined as defendants Stride & Associates, Inc. (Stride), an employment agency that had placed him in several jobs in the technology sector before his problems at Whittier surfaced, and William O’Neil & Company, Inc. (O’Neil), a potential employer which allegedly conspired with Stride to have appellant take a psychological test.
Respondent obtained summary judgment on appellant’s claims, and court affirmed the judgment on November 23, 2004. In response, appellant amended his complaint on January 15, 2005, to add “Whittier Law School” as a “Doe” defendant. The trial court granted Whittier’s demurrer to appellant’s amended complaint. Appellant appeals from this decision. Appellant’s lawsuit against the O’Neil defendants proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court rendered judgment for the O’Neil defendants. Appellant separately appeals from this judgment. Court consolidated appellant’s two pending appeals for decision. After considering appellant’s arguments and reviewing the record, court found no basis for disturbing the judgment.