CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Defendant and appellant Chris Escobar appeals a judgment following his no contest pleas to two counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his pleas after he learned that two of his victims, his minor stepdaughters, were giggling when interviewed separately about the sexual abuse. We affirm.
|
|
An information filed January 19, 2016, charged appellant Adriano Costa with one count of manufacturing concentrated cannabis in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379.6, subdivision (a), one count of possession for sale of marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359, and one count of child endangerment in violation of Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a). The information alleged that if appellant were convicted of violating Health and Safety Code section 11379.6, he could “be granted probation only in an unusual case where the interests of justice would best be served.” (§ 1203.073, subd. (b)(3).)
|
|
A jury convicted Mayra R. Contreras (defendant) of robbery after she grabbed a parrot, tossed it in her car, and pulled a knife to keep the parrot’s owner from approaching the car as she got into the driver’s seat. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in not instructing, sua sponte, on the lesser included offense of grand theft. We conclude there was no error, and affirm.
|
|
Yeniffer Behrens appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her suit after it sustained demurrers to her first amended complaint (FAC). She contends: (1) the court abused its discretion when it denied her leave to amend the FAC, (2) the court abused its discretion when it inquired into the truth of the facts alleged in the FAC, (3) the defendants’ loan securitization process was invalid and illegal, and (4) she has standing to challenge the foreclosure of her property. We affirm.
|
|
Plaintiff Bahman Hariri Moghadam, individually, as general partner of 5425 S.M.B. Limited, and as trustee of 808 Ashland Living Trust dated 4/18/2006 (the Ashland Trust), and 5425 S.M.B. Limited, appeals from a summary judgment. Defendants on appeal are Jeffrey A. Dunham, Dunham Mortgage Funds, and Dunham Commercial Mortgage LP. Plaintiff owed defendants money pursuant to a loan secured by two of plaintiff’s real properties. Plaintiff defaulted on the loan. Ultimately, defendants made an offer to plaintiff that $450,000 be paid by a certain date in exchange for reconveyance of the trust deed to one of the real properties and forbearance of foreclosure on the other. Defendants were not paid by the deadline and commenced a trustee sale of the real properties.
|
|
In an effort to resolve litigation, the City of Palos Verdes Estates (the City), the Palos Verdes Homes Association (the Association), the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (the School District), and one Palos Verdes Estates homeowner, Robert and Dolores A. Lugliani (the Luglianis), entered into a multifaceted and complicated settlement agreement that resulted in exchanges of money and certain real estate. Plaintiff John Harbison (Harbison), a neighbor of the Luglianis and Palos Verdes Estates homeowner, disapproved of the settlement, prompting him and Citizens for Enforcement of Parkland Covenants (CEPC) to file suit, challenging the transfers in that settlement. The trial court agreed with plaintiffs that the settlement violated deed restrictions governing the subject land and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against the City, the Association, and the Luglianis.
|
|
Jay Levites (Levites) sued Jacqueline Mister for damages allegedly sustained during an automobile accident. The jury returned a verdict in Mister’s favor. Mister appeals from an order granting a limited new trial to Levites on the issues of causation and damages. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting Levites’s motion for a new trial after the jury found, contrary to the expert medical testimony, that Mister’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Levites any harm. We affirm the order and dismiss Levites’s protective cross-appeal from the judgment as moot. (See Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 60 [“[A]ffirmance of the new trial order means that there is no judgment in effect and that the appeal from the judgment is moot”].)
|
|
Jarrett James Williams appeals from a final judgment entered after her pleas of guilty to four counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460, subd. (a)), and a single count of second degree burglary (§§ 459/460 subd. (b)), and admission of a prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, 667). Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellant has been informed of her right to file supplemental briefing and she has not done so.
|
|
These consolidated appeals are from a juvenile court order committing appellant Ryan F. to juvenile hall for six months following findings that he had violated probation in both cases. Ryan’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel advised Ryan of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the Wende brief and he has filed no such brief.
|
|
Armando Gabriel Hernandez appeals following his no contest plea to a single count of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). He also admitted allegations under section 12022.7, subdivision (a) that the crime involved the infliction of great bodily injury and that he previously served five years in prison as described in section 667.5, subdivision (b). His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
|
|
After a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations that Zion Y. committed two counts of second degree robbery. On appeal Zion argues that the juvenile court erred by admitting two photographs into evidence and by declining to take judicial notice of an expert report, and that the court’s findings should therefore be reversed. In the alternative, Zion argues that the matter should be remanded for the juvenile court to award credits for time he had spent in custody before the disposition hearing, which it failed to do. We conclude that Zion has not demonstrated error with respect to the evidentiary issues, but we agree that the juvenile court must calculate and award appropriate predisposition credits. Accordingly, we shall remand to the juvenile court for that purpose and otherwise affirm.
|
|
In case number 148049, plaintiff and appellant James Rufini appeals the entry of summary judgment for defendant and respondent CitiMortgage, Inc. on claims that CitiMortgage improperly refused to modify Rufini’s home loan and as a result wrongfully foreclosed on his mortgage. The trial court entered summary judgment after concluding that Rufini could not raise a genuine dispute of fact over whether he occupied the home as his principal residence in order to qualify for a loan modification. We affirm.
In case number 149410, Rufini appeals the trial court’s award of $60,000 in attorney’s fees to CitiMortgage as costs of suit. We affirm. |
|
The issue of this appeal is whether the trial court should have entered a stipulated judgment in favor of plaintiff Edward W. Scott Electric Co., Inc. (Scott Electric) and against defendant Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. (TPCI) in the amount of $326,691 plus interest from the entry of the judgment. TPCI appeals, arguing that the trial court entered the judgment erroneously based on a misinterpretation of a 2010 settlement agreement between Scott Electric, TPCI, and two other defendants in the case below, Peter S. Thompson and Toni H. Thompson (collectively, “Thompsons”). We affirm the judgment based on our de novo review of the settlement documents.
|
|
Defendant Javier Vargas seeks reversal of a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of certain sex crimes. He argues that the trial court improperly reconsidered its pre-trial order granting his motion in limine and barring the prosecution from introducing in its case in chief his statements to a detective the day after he was arrested. He also contends that the court erred when it reversed its previous ruling and later, during trial, denied defendant’s own suppression motion. Defendant contends there was not sufficient reason for the court to reconsider its initial order nor sufficient evidence that he effectively waived his right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). We disagree. The court acted within its discretion to reconsider its initial order and there was sufficient evidence that defendant effectively waived his Miranda rights. Therefore, we affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
