CA Unpub Decisions

This is a personal injury action brought by plaintiff, through her guardian ad litem, against various defendants, including Schlager. The superior court entered judgment in favor of respondent after sustaining without leave to amend her demurrer to Kozano's third amended complaint. Kozano filed a notice of appeal.
Parties filed a joint application and stipulation for reversal of judgment. The joint application and stipulation requests that the court reverse the judgment, remand the case to the superior court for dismissal of the action with prejudice, order each party to bear her own costs, and order the remittitur issued forthwith. Court declines to accept the stipulation and denies the application.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine and admitted the allegation that he had suffered a residential burglary conviction. Defendant also waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement and on that same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 14 years in state prison. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and request for certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied the certificate of probable cause. Nonetheless, defendant sought, and this court granted, his request to have the notice of appeal deemed timely filed under the constructive filing doctrine. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argues the evidence that he was on parole did not comply with the Harvey-Madden rule and his sister’s telephonic consent was invalid because she was not present. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with brother’s murder and with arson causing great bodily injury. The complaint further alleged that defendant personally used a firearm in committing the murder and the special circumstance that he killed brother to prevent him from testifying in a criminal proceeding. A jury convicted defendant of both counts and found the additional allegations true.
The court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction, plus the upper term of 10 years for the firearm enhancement. The court sentenced defendant to nine years on the arson conviction, which was stayed pursuant to section 654.
Defendant makes the following contentions: (1) the evidence of brother’s statements that he was going to meet Defendant on the day he was killed to discuss the credit card fraud violated his rights under the confrontation clause; (2) the trial court prejudicially erred in allowing evidence of statements made by Brother during telephone conversations overheard by others; (3) trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to object during the prosecutor’s closing argument; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the true finding on the special circumstance allegation; (5) the record includes certain sentencing errors; (6) the imposition of upper term sentences violates his constitutional rights; and (7) the imposition of a court security fee violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Court affirms the judgment, reject defendant’s argument regarding the court security fee, and instructs the trial court to correct certain sentencing errors.

A Kern County jury found appellant guilty of two counts of conspiracy and four counts of selling, transporting, furnishing, or offering methamphetamine, with two of the narcotics counts enhanced for exceeding a kilogram in weight. The trial court denied probation and sentenced Appellant to nine years in state prison. The sentence consisted of a three-year middle term for one of the narcotics offenses with an additional three years for the weight enhancement, plus consecutive one-year subordinate terms for the remaining three narcotics offenses. The trial court also stayed three-year sentences for each of the three counts of conspiracy.
The judgment is affirmed without prejudice to any relief to which Appellant might be entitled after the United States Supreme Court determines the effect of Blakely v. Washington, on California law in Cunningham v. California.

Appellant pled guilty to one count of second degree burglary. Defendant admitted a prior prison term enhancement. The parties agreed to a stipulated sentence of three years for the burglary conviction plus one year for the enhancement. The trial court imposed the stipulated sentence, imposing a restitution fine and direct victim restitution. The court further granted appellant 122 days of custody credits. After independent review of the record, court concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter and admitted an enhancement allegation that in committing that offense he personally used a firearm. The court imposed a prison term of 16 years, consisting of the six-year midterm on the substantive offense and 10 years on the enhancement. Following independent review of the record, the court concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant, appeals from a judgment entered awarding him $3000 for false imprisonment against respondent Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Home Depot). On appeal appellant contends that the trial court erred in a number of its rulings on motions in limine. After he filed his opening brief, Home Depot moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that appellant had accepted the fruits of the judgment and therefore is barred from the prosecution of the appeal. Finding merit in Home Depot's contention, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Defendant, sentenced in 1998 to 25 years to life for possession of methamphetamines, appeals from an order entered after the trial court denied his motion for resentencing under Blakely and Apprendi. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and was appointed counsel to represent him. Court reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

Defendant was convicted of carjacking, active participation in a criminal street gang, attempting to dissuade a witness, and possession of a deadly weapon. Defendant also admitted the truth of a gang enhancement allegation. Defendant was sentenced to 23 years in state prison and filed a timely notice of appeal. Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. The court reviewed the entire record and concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

Appellants appeal from a post-judgment order imposing sanctions on them for failing to attend a mandatory settlement conference. Appellants contend that the sanctions order amounted to punishment for taking a particular settlement position, contrary to California Rules of Court, rule 222. Court affirms the order.

Plaintiff appeals the judgment of dismissal after the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff’s action for unfair competition was sustained without leave to amend. Appellant acknowledges that the recently filed Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC is determinative of the causes of action as pled in its complaint. It asserts that, pursuant to Branick v. Downey Savings and Loan Assn. a companion decision to Californians for Disability Rights, the judgment should be reversed and remanded to allow it to seek leave to amend. Court disagrees. Judgment Affirmed.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing Minassian from plaintiff’s action for non-payment of a debt that Minassian allegedly guaranteed on behalf of respondents. Court holds that plaintiff adequately alleged a cause of action to enforce such a guarantee and that the court erred in sustaining Minassian’s demurrer. Court therefore reverses the judgment for Minassian.

Based on information from a confidential informant, a search warrant was issued to search defendant and appellant's residence. The search warrant and affidavit were sealed. Defendant moved to unseal the search warrant and affidavit and for disclosure of the informant’s identity. After an in camera hearing, the motions were denied. Defendant thereafter renewed his motions before Judge Daigh, who held that he could not revisit the motions. Defendant now appeals, contending that Judge Daigh erred in not hearing de novo his motions. Court affirms.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance and admitted one prior strike conviction. Defendant was sentenced to two years eight months in state prison, consisting of the low term of 16 months, doubled for the prior strike.
The court reviewed the entire record and is satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. Judgment Affirmed.