CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff is a prison inmate who sued a correctional officer and a correctional lieutenant claiming (1) they transferred him to a different building within the prison in retaliation for filing a grievance against the correctional officer, (2) the transfer was done with a negligent disregard for his health and safety because an enemy inmate was housed in the building to which he was transferred, and (3) they lost items of his personal property during the transfer. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the superior court granted the motion.

A criminal law decision regarding possession of a firearm by an ex-felon to assist a criminal street gang with three prior prison terms.

Appellant was found guilty after a jury trial of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. The jury found true an allegation that appellant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. The jury acquitted appellant of robbery. The court sentenced appellant to prison for three years for assault plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court inadequately instructed the jury on the great bodily injury enhancement. The appeals court affirmed the judgement.

Appellant Raul Gonzalez was found guilty after a jury trial of attempted forcible kidnapping (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 207, subd. (a), count one), attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 215, subd. (a), count two), robbery (Pen. Code, § 211, count three), and failing to notify authorities of his status as a registered sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (f)(1), count four).[1] The jury found true allegations that appellant suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b) – (i) & 1170.12, subds. (a) – (d)) and that appellant had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant contends the trial court failed to instruct the jury on theft, the lesser included offense to robbery. Appellant also contends the attempted kidnapping and robbery counts were part of an indivisible course of conduct and the court violated section 654 in sentencing him on both counts. The case is remanded to the trial court to amend clerical errors in the clerk's minutes and abstract of judgment and to forward them to the appropriate authorities. The amended documents shall reflect appellant's sentence on count three was doubled pursuant to the three strikes law and that he received a five-year enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a). The judgment is affirmed.

The juvenile court sustained all allegations in the petition, finding appellant had committed three offenses, including attempted second-degree robbery with a gang enhancement (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 664, 211, 186.22, subd. (b)(1); count 1), misdemeanor battery (§ 242/243; count 2), and misdemeanor possession of an alcoholic beverage by a minor (Bus. & Prof. Code. The appeals court agreed with appellant's third contention because, as the People acknowledge on appeal, the prosecution presented no evidence the beer bottle appellant wielded during the underlying incident contained any alcohol, and the court finds no other circumstances from which appellant's possession of alcohol could be reasonably inferred. Accordingly, the appeals court reverse the juvenile court's true finding on count 3. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

At the six-month review hearing in Melinda K., the juvenile court found that reasonable reunification services had been provided and ordered an extension of reunification services for an additional six months. (Melinda K., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1151-1152.) The mother appealed the reasonable services finding because there had been a significant delay in providing certain counseling services. Melinda K. held that, because the continuation of reunification services negated any adverse consequence from the reasonable services finding, the parent was not an aggrieved party and the order was not appealable. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. Defendant argues that the initial stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the police did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. Court find the police had sufficient reasonable suspicion and affirm.

Mother appeals from a custody order (exit order) made when the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction over an infant. The court's order granted infant's father sole legal and physical custody, and provided for â€

Mother appeals from a custody order (exit order) made when the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction over an infant. The court's order granted infant's father sole legal and physical custody, and provided for â€

Mother appeals from a custody order (exit order) made when the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction over an infant. The court's order granted infant's father sole legal and physical custody, and provided for â€

Appeal from the order terminating parental rights to five children and freeing them for adoption. Appellants challenge the order only as to the two oldest children contending the children's behavioral problems make them unadoptable. Specifically, they contend: (1) the juvenile court improperly restricted cross‑examination of a social worker about the report from a psychological assessment of the children; (2) the finding of adoptability is not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the adoption assessment was inadequate. Court find no error and affirm the order.

Law enforcement officers investigated reports of four pipe bombs--two at an elementary school, one at a children's center, and one in an orchard. Meanwhile, as law enforcement officers were occupied investigating the bomb reports two masked men entered a business in a different part of town, pointed a semi-automatic handgun at the employees, and demanded cashA criminal law decision regarding conspiracy to commit robbery, possession of a destructive device near a school or other public place, making a false bomb report to a peace officer, and attempted robbery. On appeal, defendant challenges the admissibility of his confession and the trial court's exclusion of other statements made in the course of his interviews with the police. The appeals court finds no merit in these contentions. The appelas court finds merit in defendant's final argument that section 654 prohibits punishment for conspiracy and for the substantive crimes that were the object of the conspiracy. Accordingly, the appeals court reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

In this construction defect case, a landslide damaged or destroyed three homes in the Willowcreek development in Watsonville. Two of the homes were owned by plaintiffs. The third home belonged to one of the developers that sold plaintiffs their properties. Finally, plaintiffs claim they are entitled to prejudgment interest from the date the complaint was filed. The court affirm the decision.

Defendant was sentenced to 45 years to life in state prison. Defendant was convicted of killing a couple, and the couple's unborn child, when he drove at excessive speed through a stop sign under the influence of alcohol on December 4, 2003. On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of mental state, the admissibility of his driving history of Vehicle Code violations and accidents, and a jury instruction which created â€