500 matching results for "mk":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Valentin Arias Jimenez was convicted of crimes in San Francisco County and in San Mateo County. While on mandatory supervision, appellant committed a crime in San Mateo. The San Mateo County trial court resentenced defendant in the San Francisco case and consolidated the sentences for an aggregate term. Appellant’s sole contention is that the San Mateo County trial court erred when it refused to award additional credits for his time in custody and time on supervision in the San Francisco case. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant was sentenced to four years in prison following a late amendment to the information. Appellant contends that the trial court applied the wrong law in granting the amendment, that the California Supreme Court decision in People v. Valladoli (1996) 13 Cal.4th 590 was wrongly decided to the extent it allows the late amendment, and that Valladoli is distinguishable in that the prosecutor here intentionally and purposefully delayed requesting the amendment to the information. We affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Jose Corado-Merlos was convicted of sexual offenses committed against his then 11-year-old daughter and sentenced to prison for those offenses, as well as for a prior offense for which he had been on probation. He contends his convictions in the later case must be reversed due to the trial court’s refusal to make a preliminary determination as to the victim’s younger brother’s competency to testify and the court’s refusal to strike the brother’s hearsay statement that the victim had been sexually assaulted. As the probation violation in the earlier case was based on the verdicts in the later one, he contends that if his convictions in the later case are reversed, the revocation of probation must also be reversed. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Del Norte Senior Center, Inc. (Senior Center) appeals following a nine-day trial in which the jury found in favor of Tracy Stelling, an accountant who had been hired by the Senior Center as an independent contractor to perform bookkeeping services, including for the Senior Center’s energy program, through which it administered various energy contracts funded by government agencies. The Senior Center was forced to return government funds due to accounting irregularities in the energy contracts it administered. The Senior Center sued Stelling and two of its own former employees, seeking damages for, among other things, disallowed costs of its energy program, audit costs, and loss of revenue from suspended contracts. Both Senior Center employees were found to have been negligent, as was the Senior Center itself, but Stelling was found non-negligent in performing her limited accounting duties.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) gives Indian tribes the right to intervene in dependency proceedings “where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved,” and foster care placement or termination of parental rights for the Indian child is being sought. (Id., at § 1912(a).) To that end, the party initiating dependency proceedings must provide the Indian child’s tribe with notice of the proceedings and the right to intervene. (Ibid.) In this dependency action, the mother of L.D. belatedly challenges the juvenile court’s finding made at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing regarding compliance with ICWA. We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Kenneth Hunter Wilder was convicted by a jury of one felony count of attempted possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 311.11, subd. (a)), one felony count of attempted use of a minor for sex acts (§§ 664, 311.4. subd. (c)) and one misdemeanor count of annoying or molesting of a child (§ 647.6). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Wilder on formal probation for three years.
On appeal, Wilder raises the following arguments: (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his felony convictions; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to provide a pinpoint instruction to the jury; (3) the trial court erred in not excluding the statements he made to police as they were involuntary and coerced; (4) one of the probation conditions imposed, which prohibits him from possessing “any children’s toys, games, clothing, etc.,” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; and (5) the trial court failed to award him conduct |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Arnold Applebaum employed Agustina Boktor for several years as a housekeeper and nanny to care for his school-age daughter (Daughter). After Applebaum terminated Boktor’s employment, she filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner (commissioner), an administrative remedy set forth in Labor Code sections 98 et seq. The commissioner determined Applebaum owed $4,500 for overtime work, not the $400,000 Boktor requested. Unhappy with this ruling, Boktor appealed the decision and pursuant to section 98.2, subdivision (a), was afforded a trial de novo in the superior court. The trial court determined Applebaum owed Boktor $300 for unpaid overtime and imposed several penalties and interest. Boktor then filed a motion for attorney fees first under section 98.2, subdivision (c), and later under section 1194.
The trial court did not resolve the issue of whether Boktor was entitled to attorney fees under either section 98.2 or section 1194. Instead, the trial court presumed attorney |
From CA Unpub Decisions
In this declaratory relief action, the trial court ruled the Orange County Department of Education (Employer) must pay approximately $3.3 million in additional contributions to fund pension benefits promised to its employees. Employer argues we must independently review the legal issues raised in its complaint because the judgment arises from an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Applying this standard, we nevertheless reach the same conclusion as the trial court. The requested payment from Employer, which related to an unfunded liability of its employees’ pension benefits, was permissible and did not violate the California constitution.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
On Labor Day weekend 2013, an electrical power surge knocked out a sewage lift pump near the 73 Freeway. The pump was operated by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (the District). The result was 79,000 gallons of raw sewage overflowing into an adjacent storm channel. The sewage then traveled about 150 yards to the Upper Newport Back Bay. Only 2,000 of the 79,000 gallons was recovered. About a year and four months later, on New Year’s Day 2015, a District sewage line plagued by tree roots backed up in the same general area. This time 8,100 gallons of raw sewage made its way into the Back Bay through the same channel. Both overflows lasted less than a day.
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (the Board) sought an administrative fine (called “ACL” by the parties, for “administrative civil liability”) against the District for both overflows. The maximum amount of the fine, based on the statutory limit of $10 per gallon and $10,000 per day (see Water Code, § 13385 |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Jorge Roberto Castro was convicted of one count of committing a forcible lewd act on a child (his daughter, K.C.) under the age of 14, and one count of assault with intent to commit a sexual offense against her. Both offenses occurred after Castro followed K.C. into the bathroom in the family home at approximately 2:00 a.m., using his foot to prevent her from closing the door to keep him out. The first count pertains to his fondling of her breasts, and the second to his attempt to make her remove her pants.
Castro argues his conviction on the first count must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence he employed force or duress in committing the lewd act of fondling K.C.’s breasts. While Castro concedes there is evidence he used force in connection with the effort to remove her pants, including evidence that K.C. screamed and cried, fought him off, and that he twice bit her, he contends the undisputed evidence establishes all of that occurred after he fondled her breast |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Shawn Junior Chandler appeals from a judgment after the jury convicted him of deliberate and premeditated attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon and found true weapon and great bodily injury enhancements. Chandler argues the following: the trial court erred by not granting the jury’s request to readback of closing argument from Chandler, who represented himself; insufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of deliberation and premeditation; the court erred when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM Nos. 603 and 372; and the abstract of judgment has an error that must be corrected.
After oral argument, the parties filed supplemental briefs on the effect of the following: Senate Bill No. 1393 (S.B. 1393), effective January 1, 2019, which in relevant part amended Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (a), and 1385, subdivision (b); and Assembly Bill No. 1810, effective June 27, 2018, which in relevant part enacted Penal Code section 1001.36. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Michael Bakkers appeals from a judgment after the trial court ruled in favor of his father, Paul Bakkers, on his complaint for cancellation of interest and quiet title. Michael argues the trial court erred because its factual findings are inconsistent with its legal conclusions and it failed to make crucial findings. As we explain below, the record does not include a reporter’s transcript, and reversible error does not appear on the face of the record. The judgment is affirmed.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant, L.R., appeals from an order committing her to the California Department of Developmental Services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500, et seq. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appointed counsel for defendant Jonathan Noe Luevanos asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
|