CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Crisp Warehouse, Inc. (Crisp), a walnut processing business, filed a civil complaint against Mid-Valley Nut Company, Inc. (Mid-Valley), for breach of contract. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement. After Mid-Valley failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, Crisp requested a default judgment against Mid-Valley on its complaint. The trial court thereafter entered a judgment against Mid-Valley.
Mid-Valley filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment on the basis of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). The court denied the motion. |
|
Following a conviction for first degree murder and attempted premeditated murder, Daniel Emanuel Martinez received a sentence of 22 years 4 months plus 50 years to life, which included several firearm enhancements. During voir dire, Martinez brought a Batson/Wheeler motion arguing the prosecutor peremptorily excused three Hispanic prospective jurors based solely on their race. The trial court denied the motion on the ground Martinez failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination, and Martinez challenged that ruling on appeal.
|
|
A jury found Richard Aguilera guilty of transport of methamphetamine for sale (count 1, Health & Saf. Code, § 11378, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine for sale (count 2, Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), attempt to destroy and conceal evidence (count 3, Pen. Code, §§ 664/113), and resisting a peace officer (count 4, Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)). The court sentenced Aguilera to prison for seven years.
On appeal, Aguilera argues the prosecutor committed misconduct. Aguilera contends the misconduct created a fundamentally unfair trial and it was reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been reached absent the misconduct. We find the error harmless and affirm the judgment. |
|
A jury convicted Thomas Francis Burke IV of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a); count 1) as a lesser included offense to murder, and found true an allegation that Burke personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Burke to a 16-year prison term, consisting of the midterm of 6 years for manslaughter plus the upper term of 10 years for the firearm enhancement. On appeal, Burke contends the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting what he characterizes as irrelevant and inflammatory evidence of his past text messages to a former girlfriend and other actions concerning her and her then current boyfriend, on the issue of Burke's character or propensity for violence.
|
|
Minor M.T. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders declaring her a ward of the court and placing her on formal probation following her no contest plea to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 22810, subdivision (d), possession of tear gas by a minor. M.T. was 13 years old at the time. She argues the wardship finding and probation order must be set aside because the district attorney did not prove, the court did not find, and the record does not support an implied finding that she knew the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of its commission. We agree. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
|
|
Robert Kent Taylor appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition to recall his sentence and resentence him to a reduced sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Taylor has not responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having considered the briefing and having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm. |
|
Defendant Melfido Otto Valdez-Oroxco appeals a judgment convicting him of, among other things, sexual penetration with a child under 10 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)) and sentencing him to 30 years to life in prison. He contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that “penetration of the labia majora constitutes penetration of a genital opening” and by failing to instruct the jury on the crime of attempted sexual penetration as a lesser included offense. He also contends he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to closing argument by the prosecutor that he contends weakened the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no prejudicial error and shall affirm.
|
|
This case arises from a guilty plea to several offenses. The People did not enter into a plea agreement with the defendant, rather the trial judge indicated the sentence to be imposed in this case and the trailing probation revocations would be four years. The defendant pleaded "to the sheet," i.e., he pleaded guilty to all counts and admitted all allegations. He was sentenced in accordance with the trial court's "indication." In this appeal counsel argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to bring a motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction, or to seek mitigation of the indicated sentence.
|
|
Appellants California Alliance Telecard, Inc. (Telecard) and Riyadh Haddad (Haddad) appeal from an award of costs and attorney fees made in favor of defendants and respondents Holly Distribution Group, LLC and Mustapha Kiskou (collectively referred to in the singular as Holly) following a bench trial which ended in a defense verdict. Appellants contend on appeal that the award as to Haddad was improper procedurally because there was no notice to him of the filing of the motion, and the motion was never served on him personally. Alternatively, Haddad asserts that the award was not supported by sufficient evidence to allow the court to “pierce the corporate veil” and make him personally liable for the fees. We affirm.
|
|
Following a domestic dispute at the home of appellant’s mother, appellant was charged with dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1)) ; cutting a utility line (§ 591); resisting an officer (§ 69); making criminal threats (§ 422); threatening an officer (§ 71); and two counts of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)). A jury convicted appellant of all charges, except for making criminal threats. With respect to that charge, the jury convicted appellant of the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of seven years four months in state prison.
This appeal presents two discrete issues. First, appellant contends his conviction for attempted criminal threats must be reversed because of prejudicial jury instruction errors. We agree. |
|
A jury found defendant Charles Myers guilty of participating with two of his brothers (Korey and Willie Myers) in the "Scooter Bandits" series of armed robberies and residential burglaries. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on a misdemeanor count of sexual battery that allegedly occurred during one of the burglaries. The trial court sentenced him to 13 years in prison. On appeal, Charles contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the burglary and sexual battery counts from the robbery counts. He also contends the trial court erroneously responded to a question from the jury about the extent to which the jury could use its conclusions regarding guilt on some counts toward the resolution of the remaining counts. We reject these contentions, and affirm.
|
|
This is the joint appeal from judgment filed by defendants Kenneth Ray Byrd and Joseph Gregory Ellis following their convictions by separate juries for first degree felony murder and second degree robbery. In addition, Ellis’s jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and found true the felony-murder special circumstance allegation. Byrd was then sentenced to 25 years-to-life in prison, while Ellis was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Defendants challenge their convictions on many grounds, including, among others, insufficiency of evidence, erroneous admission of evidence, various due process violations, misinstruction of the jury and judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
