CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
Appellant received a six-year suspended prison sentence and was placed on felony probation. The court later ordered the six-year term after appellant admitted a violation of probation. Appellant argues that court must remand for resentencing because the trial court erroneously believed it did not have the discretion to reinstate probation and because it increased a previously-ordered restitution fine when it sentenced appellant on the probation violation. Court reject the first contention, but agree with the second.
|
Appeal from conviction for possession of cocaine base, and possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Appellant claims the trial court erred by excluding impeachment evidence, instructing the jury and failing to instruct on third party culpability. Court reject these claims.
|
Defendant was convicted of residential burglary, with two prior serious felony convictions that qualified as strikes.Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a term of 35 years to life. Defendant, contending the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to strike at least one of his prior strikes. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.
|
Appeal from the judgment following no contest plea to petty theft and giving false information to a police officer. The court denied appellant's request for a certificate of probable cause. Court appointed counsel to represent appellant in appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
|
Following a bench trial in this case involving a real estate transaction, buyers/plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the seller, defendant. Plaintiffs contend a statutory requirement for the seller to provide a transfer disclosure statement (including disclosure of flooding problems) cannot be waived, and therefore the trial court erred in concluding plaintiffs had waived the right to a transfer disclosure statement. Court shall conclude that, even assuming for the sake of argument that the section 1102 statement cannot be waived, plaintiffs fail to show prejudicial error warranting reversal of the judgment, because they did not meet their burden of proof on the element of damages.
Plaintiffs also complain of the trial court's comment that they have a problem with standing (related to their creation and later dissolution of a limited liability corporation). Court conclude the standing issue is moot. Accordingly, court affirm the judgment. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023