CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant pled no contest to stalking in violation of a court order. Appellant was placed on probation for three years on condition that he serve 300 days of local custody. Court later suspended the balance of defendant's local custody time on condition that he complete the Decision Home Program. Defendant asks the court to independently review the record. Defendant was notified of his right to submit an additional argument. No argument was submitted. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendants appeal from the judgments sending them both to prison for two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole for the gang-related, first degree murders. Defendant contends he was denied a fair trial when the prosecution joined both defendants in a single prosecution, and the trial court failed to sever them. Defendant emphasizes that his defense was that of mistaken identification, whereas his codefendant asserted self-defense and absence of a gang purpose or benefit. Defendant characterizes that those defenses were incompatible with his own. Thus, Defendant concludes his right to due process was violated by the joint trial. Court affirms.

The trial court did not err when it found defendant's prior juvenile adjudications qualified as strikes under the "Three Strikes" law. Court affirms.

A jury convicted defendant of attempted murder, two counts of attempted first degree robbery, first degree burglary, street terrorism, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a juvenile ward. The jury found the allegations true that the defendant committed the attempted murder, robberies and burglary for the benefit of the criminal street gangs, and vicariously used and discharged a firearm thereby causing great bodily injury.
The court found the allegations true that the defendant had four prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law and sentenced defendant to a total aggregated term of 102 years to life, plus 10 years. It imposed an indeterminate term of 27 years to life for the attempted murder count, a consecutive term of 25 years to life for discharging a gun during the commission of this crime, a consecutive term of 25 years to life for one of the attempted robberies, a consecutive 10 year term for using a gun during the commission of this crime, and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for street terrorism. The trial court stayed the imposition of sentence for the second attempted robbery, the burglary, the possession of a firearm by a juvenile, and the enhancements related to these counts pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
Defendant claims two of the court's innumerable evidentiary rulings were erroneous and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Defendant also contends the court misapprehended its sentencing discretion when it imposed the upper term for attempted murder and the imposition of the upper term conflicts with the principles enunciated in Blakely v. Washington and Apprendi v. New Jersey. Court concludes that the uvenile court erroneously admitted evidence of a prior home invasion robbery to prove defendant's identity, but concluded that the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice or violate defendant's federal Constitutional rights. Court rejects defendant's remaining contentions and affirms the judgment.

Plaintiffs filed a malicious prosecution complaint against an attorney, who had represented the plaintiffs in an earlier action filed against them. The trial court granted respondent's special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, i.e., "SLAPP" suit (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), in part because the underlying action was still pending and there was no favorable termination of the suit. On appeal, appellant contend: (1) their complaint was not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion; (2) they demonstrated a probability of prevailing; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motions to vacate the judgment and reconsider the ruling after they settled with the plaintiffs and the underlying action was dismissed. Court found no error and affirms the judgment.

Plaintiffs filed a malicious prosecution complaint against an attorney, who had represented the plaintiffs in an earlier action filed against them. The trial court granted respondent's special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, i.e., "SLAPP" suit (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), in part because the underlying action was still pending and there was no favorable termination of the suit. On appeal, appellant contend: (1) their complaint was not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion; (2) they demonstrated a probability of prevailing; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motions to vacate the judgment and reconsider the ruling after they settled with the plaintiffs and the underlying action was dismissed. Court found no error and affirms the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, attempted first degree residential burglary, and street terrorism, and found true defendant committed the first two offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Defendant argues that: he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him, there were instructional errors, and there was evidentiary error. None of his contentions have merit, and court affirms the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a verdict for paintiff in this collection action. Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to establish liability, certain documents were wrongly admitted in evidence, and a motion to amend the complaint should have been denied. Court found that one document should have been excluded, but since the remaining evidence supports the verdict, court affirmed.

Defendant challenges his convictions for armed robbery, first degree burglary, street terrorism, and receipt of stolen property, on two grounds. With respect to each, the court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and therefore affirms the judgment.
First, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the street terrorism charge from the other charges and to bifurcate a gang enhancement. Because the evidence related to the armed robbery charge and the street terrorism charge would be cross-admissible, the street terrorism charge would be unlikely to unduly inflame the jury vis-a -vis the robbery charge, and because the robbery case was strong on its own, the trial court was well within its discretion to deny defendant's motion to sever and/or bifurcate.
Second, defendant argues the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a gun found in defendant's bedroom two weeks after the robbery. Although two witnesses to the robbery could not positively identify the gun as one used in the robbery, they also could not exclude it. The gun was relevant not only to the armed robbery charge, but also to the street terrorism charge. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the gun into evidence although there was no unequivocal evidence connecting it directly to the robbery.

This case involves plaintiff's efforts to obtain insurance coverage from two companies for settlements it paid in two related class action lawsuits. The court determined plaintiff failed to establish that the indemnification provisions were triggered by the class action lawsuits. Plaintiff asserts the court misinterpreted the contract and failed to appreciate the nature of the class actions. Court disagrees and affirms the judgment.

This dependency case began many years ago as a child custody dispute. Parties were never married and have been living apart for approximately five years. In 2004, a family law court ordered joint legal custody and awarded physical custody of the children, with wife having unmonitored visitation rights. Minor appeals from the trial court's exit order modifying the family law custody order by granting Husband sole legal and physical custody of 12-year-old and 10-year-old minors. Mother also challenges the court's order requiring her to pay for a professional visitation monitor. Court affirms the orders.

Mother of a dependent child challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders, asserting the lack of sufficient evidence. Mother also contends that her counsel was ineffective. Court rejects the mother's contentions. Court therefore affirms the challenged orders.

Appellant appeals from the judgment dismissing his third amended complaint for racial discrimination and retaliation after the trial court sustained the demurrer of Universal Studios, Inc. (Universal) without leave to amend. Court reversed the judgment as to the discrimination claim but affirmed as to the retaliation claim.

Respondent entered into a contract with appellant for the purchase of a duplex in Long Beach. The contract called for monthly payments for a period of five years. When, after five years, the last balloon payment was due, appellant declared that it was in default and seized the property. Appellant sued, seeking to quiet title. Respondent cross-complained for specific performance. Following a hearing that was limited to arguments of counsel and the trial court's comments, the court entered a judgment that granted specific performance to respondent and that denied appellant relief. Appellant objected to the judgment on various grounds. Court conclude that the purported judgment was not a final determination of the rights of the parties and was therefore not a judgment from which an appeal could be taken. Accordingly, court dismissed the appeal and remanded the case for additional proceedings.