CA Unpub Decisions

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the opposition filed by real party in interest (real party), and petitioner’s reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that the equities favor petitioner. We conclude that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

Defendant and appellant, C.M. (Mother), appeals the judgment terminating parental rights to her son, K.M. (born in 2015), after the juvenile court denied her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking reinstatement of reunification services and vacating the section 366.26 hearing. Mother contends the court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition because she demonstrated changed circumstances, and granting the petition was in K.M.’s best interest. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Oscar Kenneth Moreno was convicted of two counts of attempted robbery, two counts of assault with a firearm, and one count of being a felon in possession of a handgun. A jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of the attempted robberies and the assaults. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for 16 years eight months. Defendant appeals contending: (1) the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could conclude defendant knew he was guilty because he fled when one of the victims tried to apprehend him, and (2) that admission of DNA evidence through a witness who did not personally perform the underlying tests and did not prepare the report of the test results violated his right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Having found no prejudicial error, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Timothy David Warren negotiated the disposition of a number of pending cases against him in return for certain sentencing recommendations from the prosecutor. When the time came for sentencing, the prosecutor did not make the agreed-upon recommendations, and instead advocated for an even greater sentence. The trial court sentenced defendant to a greater sentence than contemplated by the three felony plea agreements.
Defendant now contends, and the Attorney General agrees, that the People violated the plea agreements by failing to recommend the agreed-upon sentences for the three felony charges at issue here. The parties also agree that remand should be to a different judge. We agree with the parties and remand for specific performance and resentencing before a different judge.

Defendant was convicted of committing a lewd act on a child, and as a result he was required to register as a sex offender. On appeal, defendant argues that the sex offender registration requirement is unconstitutional as applied to him because the residency restrictions constitute cruel and unusual punishment barred by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We reject his argument and affirm.

Rene Bolanos sued his former employer, Priority Business Services, Inc. (Priority), alleging that Priority discriminated against him based on a disability, failed to accommodate him, terminated his employment, and other related claims, all in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). At trial, the jury found in favor of Bolanos on two claims and awarded him over $39,000 in damages.
Priority appeals from the judgment, asserting several errors by the trial court. First, Priority argues the court erred in excluding certain evidence regarding an earlier workers’ compensation settlement between the parties. Second, it contends that the jury lacked substantial evidence to find in favor of Bolanos on his causes of action for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in an interactive process. Third, Priority raises a substantial evidence challenge to the jury’s finding that Bolanos met his duty to mitigate his damages.

Appellant Javier Sanchez appeals from a 46 year prison sentence following his convictions on one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child between March 1, 2015 and August 31, 2015, three counts of oral copulation of the same victim during that period, and three counts of sexual abuse of a child between September 1, 2015 and September 23, 2015. He contends it was error to charge him in the information with continuous sexual abuse and the three counts of oral copulation on the same victim during the same period, without charging the counts in the alternative. He contends the convictions on the separate counts should be vacated. Respondent concedes the charging error, but argues that the trial court has discretion to vacate either the continuous sexual abuse count or the three separate oral copulation counts. Respondent requests that this court remand the matter for resentencing. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant Lorena Guia appeals a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Smart & Final Stores, LLC (S&F), her former employer.
The issues presented include whether the trial court erred in determining that certain claims were time-barred, and whether it abused its discretion in limiting trial testimony, in limiting rebuttal evidence, and in excluding an exhibit.
As discussed below, we perceive no error and affirm the judgment.

Mother Virginia W. appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her daughters, B.E. and C.E. She argues that the court erred in failing to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). We conclude there was no error, and we affirm.

Plaintiff Norma Serrano brought this lawsuit against her former employer, Aerotek, Inc., which placed her as a temporary employee with its client, Bay Bread, LLC. She raised four causes of action against Aerotek and Bay Bread based on their alleged failure to provide meal periods. On appeal, she challenges an order granting summary judgment to Aerotek, arguing the trial court erred by determining that Aerotek satisfied its own duty to provide meal periods and was not liable for any meal period violations by Bay Bread. We affirm.

After a jury trial in case No. FCR310909, defendant Darnell Underwood was convicted of first degree residential robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), first degree burglary with a person other than an accomplice present (§ 459), elder abuse likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)), false imprisonment by violence (§ 236), and criminal threats (§ 422), committed at the home of P.S. on September 12, 2014. Defendant also resolved charges alleged in case No. FCR311648, by pleading no contest to first degree burglary with a person other than an accomplice present (§ 459) committed at the home of M.S. on July 5, 2014, and first degree residential burglary (§ 459) committed at the home of M.G. and N.V. on August 29, 2014. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 11 years in state prison.

Defendant Saul David Garcia was convicted after jury trial of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), attempted carjacking (§§ 664, 215), felony false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237), and kidnapping during a carjacking (§ 209.5).
On appeal, he argues the court erred by requiring him to disclose undiscovered impeachment evidence in advance of using it for cross-examination. He also argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel throughout his trial, the court violated section 654 by not staying his sentence for second degree robbery, and the matter must be remanded for a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin).

In People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 (Chiu), the California Supreme Court examined which theories of aiding and abetting liability can be used to convict a defendant of first degree premeditated murder. The court held a defendant cannot be convicted of that offense under the natural and probable consequences theory of aiding and abetting. However, “[a]iders and abettors may still be convicted of first degree premeditated murder based on direct aiding and abetting principles. [Citation.] Under those principles, the prosecution must show that the defendant aided or encouraged the commission of the murder with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating its commission. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 166-167.) In other words, the state must prove the defendant acted with premeditation. Appellant contends the jury instructions in his case failed to convey that requirement, but we disagree and affirm

In People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 (Chiu), the California Supreme Court examined which theories of aiding and abetting liability can be used to convict a defendant of first degree premeditated murder. The court held a defendant cannot be convicted of that offense under the natural and probable consequences theory of aiding and abetting. However, “[a]iders and abettors may still be convicted of first degree premeditated murder based on direct aiding and abetting principles. [Citation.] Under those principles, the prosecution must show that the defendant aided or encouraged the commission of the murder with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating its commission. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 166-167.) In other words, the state must prove the defendant acted with premeditation. Appellant contends the jury instructions in his case failed to convey that requirement, but we disagree and affirm