CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant challenges his burglary and theft convictions on the ground the trial court erred by denying his Romero motion. Court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant appeals from the judgment of dismissal following the trial court sustaining respondent's demurrer to appellant's operative fourth amended complaint without leave to amend. A student at Los Angeles City College (LACC), appealled filed five complaints against respondent Los Angeles Community College District based on allegations of fraud in LACC's denial of a federal student financial aid loan and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Appellant argues that he complied with the Tort Claims Act, non-compliance with which was a ground relied on by the trial court to sustain respondent's demurrer. Concluding that the demurrer was properly sustained, court affirms the judgment of dismissal.

Appellant challenges his conviction for a threat in violation of Penal Code section 422. Court appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgment that appellant had been unable to find any arguable issues and which requested that court review the entire record. Appellant filed several supplemental briefs. After review, court affirms the judgment and order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the sentence it imposed on appellant.

A decision regarding attempted second degree robbery, battery, a misdemeanor. The court adjudged appellant to be a ward of the court, and ordered him to camp for a term of six months, with a maximum confinement time of three years for the robbery and six months for the battery. Defendant appeals contending that the juvenile court failed to exercise his discretion in setting his maximum term of confinement. Order Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Appellant contends that he was denied due process as a result of the trial court's refusal to instruct on the lesser offense of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years, and that there was insufficient evidence to establish the force element of the charged offense. Court affirms.

Minor was declared a ward of the juvenile court after admitting to allegations that appellant committed second degree robbery. The petition originally alleged both the robbery charge and a charge of resisting a police officer. Appellant admitted the robbery allegation in exchange for an agreement to drop the resisting arrest charge, along with a five-year commitment to the California Youth Authority. Waivers and plea were taken and the court ordered a maximum confinement period of five years at the CYA. Appellant then timely filed a notice of appeal from that order. Order Affirmed.

Appellant challenges his conviction of possession of methamphetamine for sale. Appellant asks this court to review the transcript of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion in the trial court and any documents produced to determine whether the court improperly withheld any discoverable material. Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Judgment Affirmed.

The trial court terminated appellant's probation and ordered him to pay back the county $2,322 for the costs of his probation services. Apellant contends the trial court erred because there was no proof of the actual costs or of his ability to pay. Appellant also contends the court's errors violated due process. Because the court failed to determine Jones' ability to pay, court reverses.

Appellant challenges his convictions of failing to disclose the origin of a recording or audio-visual work and counterfeiting a registered mark. He contends that the trial court erred by imposing an upper term without submitting the factual basis for the term to the jury, and the sentence on count 2 reflected in the minute order and abstract of judgment is improper, as the trial court did not sentence him on count 2. Court concludes the trial court did not err by imposing an upper term, but it erred by failing to pronounce sentence on count 2. Count 2 reversed. Other judgments affirmed.

Minor appellant challenges the decision of the juvenile court sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against him. Appellant contends the court should have exercised discretion in setting his maximum term of confinement, two of his probation conditions are overbroad and require modification, the court erred by admitting irrelevant evidence, and the evidence is insufficient to support the gang enhancement. The juvenile court had no discretion in setting appellant's maximum term of confinement, as he was placed in a county camp, not with the Department of Youth Authority. The court improperly admitted irrelevant evidence regarding appellant's oldest brother and an apparently unrelated incident that occurred a few hours before the charged offenses, but the admission was harmless. Substantial evidence supported the court's findings on the gang enhancement allegations. Probation conditions modified, otherwise, judgment affirmed.

Appeal from the judgment following appellant's convictions for gang-related murder, attempted murders, and robberies. Because of the trial court's prejudicial admission of evidence of appellant's robberies of two markets 11 years earlier in Long Beach, court reverse and remand for retrial.

Plaintiff then sued Mancini, previous attorney, for malpractice, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court sustained respondents’ demurrers to the causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Mancini on the malpractice cause of action. The court provided two independent grounds for its ruling: the Plaintiff’s untimely motions, and (2) the Plaintiff's failed to raise any triable issue of material fact with respect to, whether Mancini caused them damage. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of embezzlement and grand theft. Defendant was placed on probation, ordered to spend 180 days in county jail, and ordered to pay restitution to the victims. Defendant appealed and Court affirmed the judgment. Defendant moved to modify the conditions of her probation by reducing the amount of restitution. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Defendant contends she was denied due process because the court did not issue a statement of decision giving its reasons for its decision. Court affirms because the trial court was not required to state reasons and its ruling was otherwise proper.

Appeal from a judgment entered after defendant pled no contest to one count of vehicle theft. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to dismiss a prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). Court Affirms.