CA Unpub Decisions

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.

A jury convicted defendant of two counts of second degree robbery and one count of attempted second degree robbery. The jury found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the robberies and attempted robbery. The jury found not true the allegation that defendant used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the attempted robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to 21 years, four months in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his robbery and attempted robbery convictions, the trial court improperly admitted evidence of two of his prior convictions for impeachment, and the trial court improperly restricted defense counsel's comments about a newspaper account of misidentification in connection with eyewitness identification in closing argument. Court affirms.

Defendant appeals his conviction for receiving stolen property. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief. Appellant was notified that he could file his own supplemental brief, and has not done so. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 1 - first degree residential burglary and count 6 - conspiracy to commit first degree residential burglary with an admission that he suffered a prior felony conviction and a prior serious felony conviction. The court sentenced him to prison for 17 years, and the sentence included concurrent terms for the offenses. The judgment is modified by staying execution of sentence on appellant's conviction for conspiracy (count 6) pending completion of his sentence on his conviction for first degree residential burglary (count 1), such stay then to become permanent, and, as modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to forward an amended abstract of judgment.

Defendant and appellant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for burglary, robbery, and mayhem. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 10 years 4 months. Defendant contends the trial court committed sentencing error. First, Defendant argues that a great bodily injury enhancement should not have been imposed on the burglary count because great bodily injury is an element of mayhem. Second, Defendant argues that imposition of an upper term sentence violated his right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. Court affirms.

The Juvenile Court found that minor was a juvenile who came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he possessed an alcoholic beverage in a public place. Defendant was placed on six months of informal probation, ordered to complete 30 days of home supervision, and committed to the custody of his mother.
On appeal, the minor contends (1) the juvenile court erred by failing to comply with Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.1, (2) there was insufficient evidence that he knew the wrongfulness of his actions, and (3) the state did not satisfy the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Court affirms the judgment.

Plaintiff appeals from denial of its petition for a writ of mandate seeking to overturn an opinion of the Attorney General denying an application for leave to sue in quo warranto. Appellant sought to oust real party in interest Daniel Zingale from his position as a member of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board because he accepted outside employment as a political consultant in violation of Labor Code section 1150. Because Zingale has resigned his position as a member of the ALRB, court dismisses this appeal as moot.

The Shasta County Public Guardian filed a petition for appointment as conservator of the person of Barry S. (conservatee) under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. The petition alleged conservatee "is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder and unwilling or incapable of accepting treatment and care voluntarily" and therefore "is unable to properly care for himself or his property." Assuming (without deciding) that Wende procedures apply to conservatorship appeals, court examined the entire record. Court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to conservatee.

After the court denied a motion to suppress evidence, Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and admitted a prior strike. The court sentenced him to a stipulated 32 months in prison: double the 16-month lower term for possessing a firearm with a prior strike. Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence based on an illegal patdown search. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd acts on multiple children. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life. Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Court affirms the judgment.

Defendant appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights over her son. Appellant contends the juvenile court erred by denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights. Court affirms.

Appellant appeals the findings and orders entered at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 360, subdivision (d) and 361, subdivision (c). Citing In re Sade C., appellant asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. Appeal Dismissed.

A jury convicted defendant of driving/taking a vehicle, evading a police officer, and misdemeanor hit and run. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found that defendant had suffered three priors for which he served prison terms and three strike priors. Defendant was sentenced to prison for two consecutive terms of 25 years to life, plus three years. Defendant appealed, claiming the trial court erred in denying his Wheeler-Batson motion, admitting evidence, denying his new trial motions, failing to provide him with auxiliary services while he was representing himself, and sentencing him. Defendant also asserted that the prosecutor committed misconduct during argument to the jury. In an opinion since vacated, court rejected all his contentions and affirmed, while directing the trial court to add something to the abstract of judgment. The California Supreme Court directed the court to vacate our decision and reconsider it in light of Johnson v. California and People v. Johnson, the latter decided after the court's opinion was filed. These cases are relevant only to Defendant's Wheeler-Baston motion. Court hereby remand the matter to the trial court to allow the prosecutor to state her reasons for exercising the peremptory challenges of which Kelly complained below. If she offers a race-neutral explanation, the below court must try to evaluate that explanation and determine "whether Defendant has proved purposeful racial discrimination. . . . If it finds this prosecutor exercised [her] premeptory challenges in a permissible fashion, it should restate the judgment," while amending the abstract according to the directions in this opinion, as court reject defendant's remaining contentions. If the trial court is unable to make this ruling, "it should set the case for a new trial."

A jury found defendant guilty of first degree burglary, receiving stolen property, stalking, misdemeanor nonviolent false imprisonment, and possession of methamphetamine. Defendant admitted one 1-year prior prison term enhancement and one "strike" prior. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 14 years 4 months in prison. The judgment is modified by staying the two-year concurrent sentence on count 4, for stalking. This stay will become final if and when defendant has served the remainder of his sentence. The judgment as thus modified is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment.