CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs—sixteen firefighters employed by the City and County of San Francisco (the City)—were not promoted following a promotion examination and sued the City for age discrimination. Following trial, a jury issued a verdict for Plaintiffs. We affirm the trial court’s order granting the City judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

A jury found defendant Francisco Valle guilty of attempting to murder two San Francisco police officers; assaulting those officers with a firearm; being a past-convicted felon in possession of a firearm; and receiving stolen property. He was sentenced to state prison for two consecutive life terms, plus 45 years. He contends the trial court erred in denying his mid-trial motion to represent himself, and in denying his motion for a new trial. We conclude the new trial motion should have been granted. In light of this conclusion, and there being no likelihood of it recurring, we express no opinion on the ruling on the self-representation motion.

A jury found defendant Robert Joe Dixon, Jr. guilty of multiple felonies committed over the course of two days, with various firearms enhancements. Defendant seeks review of his judgment of conviction, contending: that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to discharge a juror and in denying his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct; there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions on the second and third counts for first degree murder and premeditated attempted murder, respectively, and also insufficient evidence to convict him of committing both counts simultaneously; the jury instruction on the “kill zone” theory of attempted murder was legally erroneous; and it was a legal error to apply a firearm enhancement on the fifth count. We modify the judgment to strike the referenced firearm enhancement and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Defendants Richard Ravanesh Singh and Jordan Luis Killens appeal following a jury trial in which Singh was convicted of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and Killens was convicted of one count of first degree murder. As to both defendants, the jury found true lying-in-wait special circumstances (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), and as to defendant Singh, the jury found true a multiple murder special circumstance (id., subd. (a)(3)). As to each murder conviction, the jury also found true allegations under section 12022.53 that defendants personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury or death. Both defendants were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the murders, with consecutive terms of 25 years to life pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (e).

It is ordered that the opinion filed on September 12, 2017, be modified in the following particulars:
On page 2, the second full paragraph is deleted and replaced with the following:
“As we explain below, we agree insufficient evidence supports the jury’s findings Grimes inflicted GBI, and that the abstracts of judgment must be corrected. We reverse the jury’s true findings on the GBI enhancement as to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, and order the abstracts of judgment corrected. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment and remand the matter.”

A jury convicted Leobardo Valladares of premediated and deliberate first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); all statutory citations are to the Penal Code), and found he personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Valladares challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his first degree murder conviction. He also contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM Nos. 3472 and 3474, erred by failing to provide a unanimity instruction, erred by refusing to allow the jury to test fire the firearm, and the cumulative effect of the errors rendered his trial unfair. We conclude these contentions lack merit and therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Deandre Jamaal Veasley grabbed two rifles from his grandfather’s house intending to take them. His grandfather tried to stop him but defendant pushed passed him and with the help of his girlfriend put the rifles in their car and drove away. One of the missing rifles was clearly identified by defendant’s grandfather; he was unable to positively identify the second rifle but was certain defendant took two rifles.

A jury found defendant and appellant Juan Carlos Lopez, guilty of: (1) two counts of rape of a child under the age of 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 269, subd. (a)(1)) ; (2) two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 14 years old (§ 269, subd. (a)(5)); and (3) seven counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act with a child under the age of 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a)). In relation to the molestation convictions (§ 288, subd. (a)), the jury found true the allegation that defendant committed the offenses against more than one victim. (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4) & former subd. (e)(5).) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for an indeterminate term of 215 years to life.

B. M., the mother of G.M., seeks writ review of a juvenile court order terminating reunification services in the dependency case of her son and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Brenda contends the evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding that placing G.M. with her would create a substantial risk of detriment to G.M.'s safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being, and therefore that the court erred when it failed to return G.M. to her custody and instead set a section 366.26 hearing. We deny the petition.

Appointed counsel for defendant Austin Billy Willis, Jr., has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436).) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.

The minor T. L. appeals from the juvenile court’s order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging he had committed driving under the influence of a drug (a misdemeanor), driving without a license, and driving without evidence of financial responsibility. The court placed the minor on six months’ probation. The minor claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood draw taken without a warrant. Finding any error in the denial of the suppression motion to be harmless, we affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Amanda Sue Nelson has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the 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. We order the trial court to strike an amended abstract of judgment and prepare a new abstract of judgment, and affirm.

Plaintiff William Cornelius, Jr., appeals from a judgment dismissing three causes of action alleging his employer retaliated against him after he reported that a pay disparity based on gender existed among employees he supervised. The trial court dismissed these retaliation claims because plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies and did not file a valid claim with his employer before seeking redress in the courts. Plaintiff contends that he did exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the department) and substantially complied with the Government Claims Act (the Claims Act) before filing suit. Finding no merit in plaintiff’s contentions, we affirm.

Plaintiff Steven Jon Wolfe obtained a civil harassment restraining order against defendant Douglas David DeVito, who did not appear at the hearing. The trial court denied defendant’s postjudgment motion to set aside the restraining order, rejecting defendant’s claim that he had not been served with notice of the proceedings. In his opening appellate brief, defendant maintains that he did not receive notice of the proceedings. His reply brief, however, makes a number of new claims of error. We affirm, finding that defendant failed to supply any citations to the record, failed to fairly summarize the evidence, and may not raise new issues in his reply brief. And, in any event, our limited review of the record demonstrates no error.