CA Unpub Decisions

Following a jury trial, defendant Nicholas James Perry was convicted of arranging to meet with a minor for sexual purposes and attempting to distribute harmful matter to a minor for sexual purposes. Defendant raises various procedural challenges to the trial proceedings, including the exclusion of certain expert testimony and instructional errors, alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, and disputes the court’s denial of his motion for new trial. We conclude defendant’s arguments lack merit and affirm the judgment.

Michael Sanchez was convicted of inflicting corporal injury on the mother of his child (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count one) and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count two). Sanchez contends his conviction for resisting arrest is unsupported by substantial evidence and the trial court erroneously denied both his motion to suppress and his motion for a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no error and affirm.

Defendant James Victor Jackson, III, was charged by information and convicted on two counts: (1) grand theft auto, identified erroneously in both the information and verdict form as a violation of Penal Code section 666.5; and (2) receipt of a stolen vehicle. On appeal, defendant contends he was deprived of due process when the trial court instructed the jury on grand theft auto with the elements for unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 18051, subd. (a).) He also asserts several purported instructional errors and prosecutorial misconduct. We conclude the unique series of errors resulting in his conviction for grand theft auto deprived defendant of due process, and reverse as to that count. However, we affirm defendant’s conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle.

In September 2015, after six years of litigation, Elaine Andrews and 128 other individual plaintiffs settled a wrongful termination action against Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS). The combined value of the settlements totaled over $37 million, effected through individual agreements modeled on a form agreement and executed by and for each plaintiff.

William E. Kennedy (Kennedy) owned and managed Weeks Street, LLC (Weeks) which built single family homes in East Palo Alto (property). Weeks obtained a construction loan from First National Bank of Northern California, N.A. (Bank) which Kennedy guaranteed. Weeks entered into a construction contract with Nexgen Builders, Inc. (Nexgen) to develop the property. Weeks also obtained a loan from Suraj P. Puri and Pravin N. Patel (Puri/Patel) secured by a trust deed on the property, subordinate to Bank’s lien; later Kennedy acquired a 30% interest in the Puri/Patel loan. After sustaining construction challenges, Weeks filed for Chapter 11 protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court. (11 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.) Weeks sued Nexgen and Bank for alleged contract breaches and other claims (lawsuit).

In 1972, the County of Mendocino amended its zoning ordinance to require landowners to secure a use permit to operate a commercial quarry and aggregate business on their property. Thereafter, in 2013, Northern Aggregates, Inc. (NAI) sought an exemption from the use permit requirement for its commercial quarry and aggregate business known as the Harris Quarry (quarry). The county granted NAI’s request, finding that NAI had a vested right to operate its commercial quarry and aggregate business as a nonconforming use under the amended ordinance. Keep The Code, Inc. (KTC), a nonprofit organization, petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate directing the county to set aside its vested right determination. After reviewing the administrative record and exercising its independent judgment, the court found NAI had no vested right to operate its business as a nonconforming use and set aside the county’s contrary determination. We affirm.

Sandeep Gupta has filed consolidated appeals from two orders entered in domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) proceedings against his then-wife, Nandini Kumar. The first is an order entered after a lengthy evidentiary hearing declining to enter a permanent DVRO against Kumar. The other, entered after a second evidentiary hearing, awards attorney fees and costs to Kumar. Based on detailed credibility determinations, the court held that Gupta had not borne his burden of proving that Kumar engaged in “abuse” as defined by the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.). The court then awarded Kumar roughly half of her claimed fees and costs, $425,000.

In 2005, Charles Green, Sr. (Charles Green) and Albert Rawlins (Rawlins) began their long-running battle for the pastorship of Apostolic Bible Way Church, Inc. (Apostolic). The dispute involved multiple lawsuits as well as an appeal to Apostolic’s governing church body. Eventually, Rawlins acquired control of the church and its properties.

Defendant Christian Birdsall, who was 16 years old when the crimes charged in this matter occurred, was convicted in criminal (or adult) court of first degree murder with special circumstances, as well as arson. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Birdsall argues among other things that, under Proposition 57, he is entitled to a transfer hearing in juvenile court to determine whether he was fit to be tried in adult court. We agree.

On the afternoon of December 30, 2012, 15-year-old Jubrille Jordan was killed by a bullet to her head as she was standing on the sidewalk near 66th and Lion in the “69th Avenue Village” housing complex in Oakland, waiting with her sister, two friends, and a baby while another friend stopped to talk with two male friends. One of the young men, Wyone Bordley (known as “Mo-Mo”), was shot in the foot. Twenty spent casings were found at the scene of the shooting, fired from two different guns. Eight of the casings, found in a group on the sidewalk, were fired from a Smith and Wesson automatic weapon; the other 12, found in a separate group on the street, came from a Glock firearm.

Appellants Keep The Code, Inc. (KTC) and real party in interest Northern Aggregates, Inc. (NAI) separately appeal following the trial court’s resolution of KTC’s request to compel the County of Mendocino and its board of supervisors (hereinafter also referred to collectively as county) to rescind (1) certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for a project expansion of the Harris Quarry, new construction of an onsite asphalt processing facility, and an amendment to the county’s zoning ordinance adding a Mineral Processing Combining District in areas zoned R-L (rangeland); and (2) related approvals of use permits for the expanded quarry, the asphalt processing facility, and a quarry reclamation plan.

In 2002, defendant Fredrick Lamar Johnson went on a crime spree, robbing and assaulting numerous people at gunpoint. In exchange for a stipulated sentence of 46 years two months in prison, he pleaded no contest to multiple charges and admitted several firearm enhancements in two separate cases. In 2003, the trial court sentenced him in both cases to an aggregate term of 46 years four months in state prison.
In 2017, after the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) pointed out that the sentence was unauthorized for various reasons, the court resentenced defendant to 46 years by striking a Penal Code section 12022.5 firearm enhancement. The court did so without a supplemental probation report and before Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (hereafter Senate Bill 620) went into effect, which now gives trial courts discretion to strike firearm enhancements.

This case arises under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000, et seq.) and concerns the Smith Canal Gate Project (project), designed to protect certain Stockton properties against flooding. Plaintiff Atherton Cove Property Owners Association (Atherton) appeals from the denial of its mandamus petition seeking to set aside the certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) by the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (Agency). On appeal, Atherton outlines purported deficiencies in the EIR, claims the EIR should have been recirculated in response to new information, and claims the Agency’s findings do not support rejecting a particular project alternative. We shall affirm the judgment denying the writ.

In this juvenile dependency case, the juvenile court exerted jurisdiction over Ashley J. (Ashley) and Carla J. (Carla) due to domestic violence between their parents that put them at risk of physical harm and of emotional abuse. On appeal, Eduardo J. (father) argues that insufficient evidence supports these jurisdictional findings. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding based on emotional abuse to Ashley, but does not support the court’s finding based on risk of physical harm as alleged and argued below. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.