CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
Defendant and appellant Soheil Naimi appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent Abdul M. Moladina in this action arising from an investment. On appeal, Naimi contends: (1) the trial court erred by permitting Moladina to contradict deemed admissions; (2) there is no substantial evidence to support findings as to each cause of action, including the finding that Naimi made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce Moladina to invest in the project; and (3) there was no basis for an award of attorney fees. We conclude the finding of fraud is supported by substantial evidence. Naimi has not shown that any of the deemed admissions negated an element of the cause of action for fraud or was contrary to a fact proven at trial. Since Naimi was properly found liable for fraud, we need not consider whether substantial evidence also supported liability for the same damages under other legal theories.
|
Mother appeals the dispositional order removing her four daughters (L.V. age 16, B.V. age 14, B.M. age 8, and T.M. age 4) from her custody and ordering supervised visitation. She contends there is no substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that removal of the children was necessary to protect the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the children. We agree and shall reverse the dispositional order.
|
In this juvenile delinquency case, C.U., a previously adjudicated ward, was found to have violated section 245, subdivision (a)(4), section 422, subdivision (a), and section 69 of the Penal Code. She appeals, attacking the adjudications for insufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.
|
Demas Yan (Yan) appeals from an order denying his special motion to strike two causes of action from respondents’ first amended complaint (FAC) pursuant to section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (section 425.16). Section 425.16, California’s anti-SLAPP statute, “provides a procedure for weeding out, at an early stage, meritless claims arising from protected [speech and petitioning] activity.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 (Baral), italics omitted.) Our standard of review is de novo. (Sanowicz v. Bacal (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1035.) We affirm.
|
Defendant Charles Stanley Longley appeals an order denying his Proposition 47 petition for resentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) Longley argues that the trial court erred when it found that he was ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 because he was serving an indeterminate life term for assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) under the Three Strikes law.
We agree and will reverse. |
Defendant Daniel Rene Lopez pleaded no contest to one count of transportation, sale, or distribution of GHB and one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378). Defendant also admitted allegations that he possessed 28.5 grams or more of methamphetamine and had a prior drug conviction. The trial court imposed a split sentence of six years eight months with the first four years to be served in jail and the remaining two years eight months to be served under mandatory supervision. On appeal, defendant challenges a condition of his mandatory supervision that provides that his electronic devices, including his cell phones, computers, laptop computers, and notepads are subject to search and forensic analysis, and that requires him to provide passcodes to conduct those searches. He contends the condition is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) and is unconstitutionally overbroad. We reject defendant’s challenge under Lent.
|
B.M. (the minor), then seven years of age, was taken into protective custody when his mother, L.C. (mother) was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI); the minor was in the car with mother at the time. After 19 months of apparent sobriety, mother suffered a serious relapse and a supplemental petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 was filed. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Based on the Orange County Social Services Agency’s (SSA) recommendation, the juvenile court terminated services and set a permanency hearing. Mother timely filed a petition for a writ of mandate. Both SSA and the minor oppose mother’s petition.
|
An information charged Jesse Degante with attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count 1) by use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and brandishing a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1); count 3). The information alleged defendant had two prior strikes under the “Three Strikes law” (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A)), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2)(A)), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
A jury convicted defendant of attempted robbery and brandishing a deadly weapon, and found true the allegation defendant used a deadly weapon to commit attempted robbery. Count 2 was dismissed following a mistrial. The court found true all prior conviction allegations and sentenced defendant to 15 years. |
A jury convicted Charles Rodney Orne of aggravated assault on a police officer;resisting a police officer, and two misdemeanor counts of hit and run driving with property damage. In a bifurcated proceeding, Orne admitted three prison priors, a serious felony prior conviction, and a prior strike. The trial court sentenced Orne to 13 years in prison, consisting of the midterm of four years on count 1, doubled to eight years based on the strike, plus five years for the prior serious felony. Orne contends the trial court’s instructions directed the jury’s verdict on counts 1 and 2 by requiring the jury to conclude the officer acted lawfully when he initiated a search of Orne’s car based on the probation status of Orne’s passenger. Orne also argues the trial court erred by omitting a self-defense exception in its instructions on counts 1 and 2.
|
Samuel Jerry Cannon delivered a backhanded fist punch to the face of a 7 Eleven store clerk. The clerk suffered a fractured nose and chipped teeth as a result. A jury convicted Cannon of one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and found true the allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. At a bench trial, the trial court found true the allegations Cannon had been convicted of a prior serious and violent felony under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and that conviction constituted a prior strike under sections 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1) and 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c)(1). The trial court struck the great bodily injury enhancement and the prior strike for purposes of sentencing. The court sentenced Cannon to the low term of two years on the assault count and five years on the prior serious and violent felony enhancement, for a total term of seven years.
|
Tenet Healthcare Corporation (Tenet), Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center (Fountain Valley), and Joseph Badalian (collectively, appellants) appeal from an order denying their petition to compel Eda Olivares to arbitrate her lawsuit alleging Labor Code violations. The appeal boils down to two issues. First, does an employee handbook from 2012 obligate Olivares to arbitrate her dispute? Second, if it does not, may appellants bring another petition to enforce earlier agreements they claim compel arbitration? The trial court said no to both.
We affirm the order denying the petition to compel arbitration and appellants’ oral request to try again with earlier agreements. Olivares did not agree to anything contained in the employee handbook appellants sought to enforce; at best she merely acknowledged she had received it. And we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow appellants another try. |
Arturo Fernando Shaw Gutierrez III, now a suspended criminal defense attorney, appeals from a judgment after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence and traverse the search warrant and he pleaded guilty to numerous counts involving a minor. Gutierrez argued the court erred by denying his motions. None of his contentions have merit, and we affirm the judgment.
|
A jury convicted defendant William Matthew Lollis of making criminal threats (Pen. Code § 422; count 1), resisting an executive officer (§ 69; count 2), attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2); counts 4–14 & 16–23), and attempting to dissuade a witness by threat of force (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)); count 15). In a bifurcated proceeding, it was found true that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction and had served prior prison terms. At the original sentencing hearing on September 24, 2013, the trial court struck defendant’s prior prison term enhancements and imposed a total prison term of 92 years four months. In his second appeal, defendant challenges the sentence imposed on him following this court’s opinion in his prior appeal (People v. Lollis (Sept. 30, 2015, F068129) [nonpub. opn.]), and the resulting disposition affirming his convictions, vacating his sentence, and remanding the matter to the trial court for resentencing.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023