CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Appellant Monica V. (Mother) appealed after the juvenile court terminated her parental rights to her daughter, Angelina L. She argues that respondent Contra Costa County Bureau of Children and Family Services (Bureau) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). Mother also claims that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it declined to hold a hearing on her petition to provide additional reunification services. We disagree with both contentions and affirm.
|
|
Defendant Carlos Vasquez Salazar appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his convictions under Penal Code section 1473.7. He contends the court erred in finding that he had not proven, among other things, that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the alleged failure by trial counsel to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. We find no error and thus must affirm the denial of his motion.
|
|
Defendant Carissa Anne Aldrich appeals a judgment convicting her of involuntary manslaughter and sentencing her to three years in prison. She contends the court erred by barring testimony by her expert witness regarding common behaviors exhibited by victims of domestic violence. We find no prejudicial error and thus shall affirm the judgment.
|
|
A jury found defendant Cory Marquis Crain guilty of second degree robbery. Crain raises two claims of instructional error. He contends the trial court erred, first, in failing to give his proposed pinpoint instruction on robbery and, second, in failing to give a unanimity instruction sua sponte.
Crain also asks this court to review the trial court’s determination that the victim’s personnel records contained no discoverable evidence, and the Attorney General does not object. We have reviewed the personnel records and find no error. We affirm. |
|
Plaintiff Deborah Bedini appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of her former employer, defendant and respondent Live Nation Entertainment Inc. (Live Nation) on her age discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Govt. Code, § 12900 et seq.). She contends summary judgment should not have been granted because there was a triable issue of fact as to whether her “demotion” and ultimate termination were the product of age discrimination. She also argues the trial court erred in considering a “reply separate statement.” We affirm.
|
|
Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of residential burglary, stalking and vandalism and sentencing him to 16 years 4 months in prison. He contends the court’s instruction on the use of prior uncharged acts of domestic violence as propensity evidence impermissibly lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof on the charged offenses. He also contends punishment for his vandalism conviction must be stayed under Penal Code section 654. We find no instructional error but agree that execution of defendant’s sentence for vandalism must be stayed. Accordingly, we modify defendant’s sentence and otherwise affirm the judgment.
|
|
At approximately 1:00 a.m. on New Year’s Day in 2011, a fire broke out in the apartment building at 920 Montgomery Street in San Francisco, where appellants, Hero Chiang and Janeva Chiang, an elderly couple, had resided for more than 16 years. The Chiangs were forced to evacuate and to relocate for a period of 33 months while the building underwent repairs. They later sued respondents Nader Heydayian and Scott Pelichoff, who allegedly owned the building (collectively, “landlords”), and their attorney, Janet Brayer, claiming the landlords were required, after repairing the unit, to reinstate them in it on the same terms and conditions they had previously enjoyed under section 37.9 of San Francisco’s Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Rent Ordinance), and San Francisco Rent Board Rules and Regulations, rule12.19 (Rent Board Rule 12.19).
|
|
Plaintiff Ellen Tsang appeals from a judgment based on a jury verdict finding that she had not proven any of her causes of action against her neighbor, defendant Charles Engelberg, for trespass, nuisance, invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and from postjudgment orders denying her motions for a new trial and to tax Engelberg’s costs. Tsang’s primary arguments are that the trial court abused its discretion in granting her own motion in limine to bar evidence of other lawsuits in which she was a party, which assertedly prevented her from justifying her interactions with Engelberg by referring to another pending action between them, and that the verdict on each cause of action is against the evidence.
|
|
Plaintiffs Shirly Hubbard, Thomas Hubbard, Jr. and Ann Hensley, heirs of decedent Thomas Hubbard, appeal a judgment entered in favor of defendants California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and San Jose Water Company (San Jose Water) (collectively water companies) on plaintiffs’ complaint for wrongful death. Plaintiffs contend the court erred in instructing the jury on their claim that the water companies negligently failed to warn decedent’s employers, independent contractors E.T. Haas and Fairly Constructors (collectively Fairly), about the health risk posed by using a power saw to cut asbestos cement pipes (pipes). Plaintiffs argue further that there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that Fairly reasonably could have been expected to know that cutting the pipes posed a health hazard at or before the time the water companies knew of the risk.
|
|
Defendant Vernon Anderson appeals a judgment convicting him of, among other things, first degree murder, multiple robberies and participation in a criminal street gang and sentencing him to 189 years to life in prison. On appeal, he contends the court made numerous procedural, instructional and evidentiary errors, and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of specific findings by the jury. He also asserts numerous errors regarding his sentence. We agree that remand for resentencing is necessary but affirm the judgment in all other respects.
|
|
In October 2015, 15-year-old J.H. (minor) convinced a reluctant H.G. (victim), also 15 years old, to orally copulate him in the hallway outside a bathroom during a church youth group function. A few seconds after she began, victim changed her mind, so she tried to pull her head away and stop, but minor repeatedly pushed her head back down until he ejaculated. The juvenile court sustained the allegation that minor committed forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A)), declared him to be a ward of the court and ordered him placed on probation in the custody of his parents.
|
|
Jose Eddie Mora-Villalobos pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and selling or transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) He also admitted the weight of the drugs exceeded 10 kilograms (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (b)(3)) and he was personally armed with a firearm when he the committed the offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)). He contends three conditions of his postrelease supervision that require his probation officer to approve his residence, employment, and associates are unconstitutionally overbroad, and the trial court erred by imposing a penalty assessment on his laboratory analysis fee. For the reasons expressed below, we direct the trial court to strike a portion of one condition and otherwise affirm the judgment.
|
|
Appellant/defendant Jason James Reyes pleaded no contest to two counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder and was sentenced to 51 years to life pursuant to a negotiated disposition, in Kings County Superior Court case No. 12CM0820BHTA. The court also imposed a $10,000 restitution fine.
In a separate and unrelated case, defendant pleaded no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury on an inmate while they were housed in the Kings County Jail (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) in case No. 14CM2655HTA (People v. Reyes (Nov. 6, 2018, F076120) [nonpub. opn.]). He was sentenced to four years, to be served concurrently with the indeterminate life term imposed for the murder and attempted murder convictions. |
|
Defendant and appellant Rudolfo Arias appeals from the trial court’s order denying his Proposition 64 petition to reduce to a misdemeanor his 2008 felony conviction for transporting marijuana for personal use. The People now concede defendant is eligible for resentencing. We reverse with directions to reconsider the petition.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
