CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant was charged with residential burglary, making a terrorist threat, felony assault, a hate crime enhancement, and an alleged prior conviction that qualified as a strike and serious felony. Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing. After the case was set for trial, defendant waived his rights, pled guilty to residential burglary, and admitted the hate crime enhancement. It was agreed that defendant would be sentenced to the middle term of four years for the burglary and two years for the hate crime enhancement.
Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Appellant was fully advised of his rights, and of the consequences of his plea and admission. There was no error in the sentence imposed. Full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.

A modification decision.

The juvenile court found true allegations that appellant had committed two counts of robbery and single counts of carjacking, receiving stolen property, possession of a controlled substance, wanton driving while in flight from a pursuing police officer, and fleeing the scene of an accident. Court also found that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the two robberies. Defendant was committed to the California Youth Authority for an eight-year term of confinement and ordered to pay almost $4,500 in restitution. Defendant appeals the disposition order, (1) challenging the sufficiency of evidence of carjacking and robbery; (2) contending that insufficient evidence of probable benefit supports his CYA commitment; and (3) asserting that the restitution order must be reduced because some relocation expenses claimed and ordered to be paid were not properly verified. Court reverses the restitution order in part with instructions for the juvenile court to allow law enforcement or mental health verification of the necessity of relocation expenses, but otherwise affirms the restitution order and the disposition order.

Appellant convicted of attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, contends that the trial court erred in failing to give attempted manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon instructions sua sponte and in imposing an upper term sentence based on judicial findings. Court affirms.

Defendant was convicted of felony possession of narcotics (count 1) and misdemeanor possession of drug-smoking paraphernalia (count 2), with one prior "strike" conviction under the "Three Strikes" law. The evidence at trial showed that the police found an unused cocaine pipe in appellant's pocket during a patdown search, drove him to the station in a patrol car, and found two rocks of cocaine on the seat where he had been sitting. At bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found that appellant's prior conviction was true and qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law. The prior conviction is a 1980 conviction in Texas for rape. Appellant was sentenced to six years in prison, based on the midterm of three years for drug possession, doubled for the strike. Defendant received a concurrent sentence on count 2.
Appellant's prior conviction for rape in Texas is reversed and remanded for retrial. In all other respects, his conviction is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a final judgment confirming a "Partial Final Award"? in an arbitration proceeding. Appellant contends (1) the judgment is void due to lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) the court erred in confirming the arbitration award because the arbitrator exceeded his powers; (3) the court abused its discretion by confirming an award that indentured defendant to perform free work in violation of the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution; and (4) the arbitrator was biased against him. Court affirms.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to worker's compensation applicant fraud, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey, probation with a stipulated 60-day county jail term, and $16,699.57 in victim restitution. About two months after entering his plea, new counsel appeared on defendant's behalf and advised that he would be filing, and later did file, a motion to withdraw defendant's plea. The court relieved defendant's former counsel. After a hearing, the court denied the motion and sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Having obtained a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals, contending that the trial court abused its discretion and erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. Court disagrees and affirms the judgment.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of, among other things, criminal threats. Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support that conviction. Court affirms.

Appellants contends that respondent did not establish that the automobile insurance policy it issued to their mother and stepfather excluded from coverage any indemnification where their stepfather was the driver in a single vehicle accident that caused their mother's death. Court disagrees and affirms.

Defendant pled no contest to vehicle theft and was sentenced to a three year eight month prison term by a judge other than the one who took his plea, even though the record contains no waiver pursuant to People v. Arbuckle. Since the record supports defendant's claim that the procedure violated the plea agreement, court vacates the sentence and remands for a new sentencing hearing.

Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its petition for writ of mandate and motion for a peremptory writ. Appellant contends that respondents were required by state law to complete their study of alternatives to the California high school exit exam (CAHSEE), pursuant to Education Code section 60856, in sufficient time to enable the Legislature to consider that study prior to the initial enforcement of the statute precluding the issuance of high school diplomas to students failing either portion of the CAHSEE. Court disagrees, and affirms the trial court judgment.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a dirk or dagger, following denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was sentenced to 180 days in county jail. Appellant contends that his section 1538.5 motion should have been granted, as his detention by a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment. Court rejects the contention, and affirms.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent in a bodily injury claim. Court affirms the judgment.

This malicious prosecution action was based on a cross-complaint for fraud in an underlying action that arose out of the sale of a vineyard by plaintiff to defendant. Sitting without a jury, the trial court decided that the defendants in this action "had probable cause to prosecute the cross-complaint"? and "did not act with malice." In case No. C049904, the judgment is affirmed. Respondents recover their costs on appeal. In case No. C051401, the order denying appellant' motion for attorney fees and costs and the order granting respondent's motion for sanctions are reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the motion for attorney fees and costs. Appellants shall recover their costs on appeal.