CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
A jury convicted defendant William Carl Gardner III of (count 1) first degree murder, (count 2) stalking after having been convicted of felony domestic violence, (count 3) possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony, (count 4) stalking, (count 5) threatening to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury, and (count 6) vandalism. The jury also found true allegations that defendant intentionally and personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury in the commission of the murder, that the murder was committed while defendant was released on bail, that the murder was committed by means of lying in wait, that the murder was committed to prevent the victim from being a witness against the defendant, that the firearm possession was committed while defendant was released on bail, and that the stalking, criminal threats, and vandalism were committed while defendant was released on bail.
|
A jury convicted Anthony James Conklin of three counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts I, II and III), and he was also convicted of a lewd act upon a child 14 or 15 years of age (§ 288, subd. (c)(1); count IV). The two victims were appellant’s stepdaughters. Because of a multiple victim finding, the trial court sentenced him to three consecutive terms of 15 years to life in counts I, II, and III pursuant to the One Strike law (§ 667.61, subds. (b) & (e)(4)). He also received a consecutive two-year term on count IV.
On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred or abused its discretion on five different occasions regarding various rulings. He further argues the imposition of his three life terms was improper, claiming only one life term per victim is authorized under section 667.61. We reject these claims and affirm. |
Dennis M. Carter appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1) and misdemeanor battery on an elder or dependent adult (§ 243.25; count 2). The trial court found true the allegations that appellant had suffered two prior serious felony convictions under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), which qualified as serious or violent felony convictions under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(j), 1170.12, subd. (b)). The court also found appellant had served six of seven alleged prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 40 years to life in state prison. The sentence included a one-year enhancement for a prison prior allegation as to which the trial court had made no finding.
|
R.V. appeals from a judgment declaring him a ward after the juvenile court found true one count of battery (Pen. Code, § 242; count 1) and one count of vandalism under $400 (§ 594 (a), (b)(2)(A); count 2). R.V. contends the juvenile court erred in calculating his maximum term of confinement because both counts were based upon a single objective. He also argues the probation condition requiring him to act peacefully with victims/witnesses should be reversed because it is vague. We determine R.V.’s maximum term of confinement properly included terms for counts 1 and 2. We agree the probation condition requiring R.V. to have “peaceful contact” with his victims/witnesses should be modified to give R.V. guidance as to the bounds of the proscribed behavior. With the modification, we affirm the judgment in all respects.
|
A petition under Welfare and Institutions section 602 was filed in the juvenile court alleging Christian L. (the Minor) committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460); receiving stolen property with a value more than $950 (§ 496, subd. (a)); and giving false identification information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)).
At the close of the prosecution's case the court granted a defense motion to dismiss all three counts for insufficient evidence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 701.1.) The prosecution asked the court to make a true finding that the Minor possessed stolen property valued at less than $950, a misdemeanor, as a lesser included offense of count 2. The court granted the request and found the lesser included offense had been proved. |
Appellants Michael A. (father) and Eden G. (mother), a married couple, have two daughters, now four-year-old S.A. and two-year-old P.A. Mother and Sergio G. have a son, Daniel, now five years old. Daniel, S.A., and P.A. are the subjects of this appeal. The juvenile court denied all three parents reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) at a contested dispositional hearing in April 2016, and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. Three months later, mother filed a modification petition under section 388, requesting reunification services. In August 2016, the juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petition and terminated parental rights.
|
Petitioner, Danny Lee Andrews (Andrews) seeks relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The petition is granted.
A jury convicted Andrews of robbery and attempted robbery. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found it to be true that he suffered two prior serious felony convictions. He was sentenced to 60 years to life in state prison. In our unpublished opinion People v. Andrews (May 26, 2016, G051067) this court reversed and remanded, ordering the trial court to vacate its true findings regarding the prior allegations. On December 16, 2016, a retrial was held, and the trial court found the allegations to be true. Andrews was informed by his appellate counsel, Kevin Sheehy, of the reversal in his case around June 2016. Shortly thereafter, Andrews wrote to his trial attorney, Shannon Winston, regarding his desire to be transported and to attend the re-trial proceedings. |
Defendant and appellant Nino Gevorkova appeals from a judgment following a successful motion for summary judgment by plaintiff and respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank). Deutsche Bank filed this action to clarify the status of a trust deed on real property that Gevorkova refinanced in 2005. In December 2008, Gevorkova executed and recorded a purported “Notice of Rescission” of the trust deed (Rescission Notice). Deutsche Bank alleged that the Rescission Notice was fraudulent and void, and sought to remove the cloud on title that it created.
Deutsche Bank moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on February 22, 2016. Gevorkova challenges the ruling on a number of grounds that we conclude have no merit. We therefore affirm. |
The judgment dissolving the marriage between Dolly Yoozbashizadeh (now, Kiosea) and Mahdi Yoozbashizadeh (Yoozbashizadeh) was entered November 9, 2015. It provided, inter alia, for joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ three minor children.
Kiosea subsequently petitioned the family law court for modification of the custody orders. The matter was called for hearing on September 27, 2016. At that hearing, both parties were represented by counsel. The minutes indicate the judge spoke with counsel in chambers, ordered the parties to participate in a two-day parenting plan assessment, and continued the hearing on Kiosea’s petition to May 18, 2017. |
Plaintiff Steven Allgoewer brought this action against two City of Tracy police officers -- Trevin Freitas and Nestor Mejia -- for using excessive force in arresting him. A jury found that Freitas, but not Mejia, used excessive force, and the jury awarded Allgoewer $90,000 for past medical expenses but no general damages. The trial court denied Freitas’s motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but granted Allgoewer’s motion for a new trial on the issue of damages after Freitas refused to consent to an award of $200,000 in general damages.
|
Appellant Veronica Rodriguez pled no contest to possession of a stolen vehicle (Pen Code, § 496d subd. (a); count 2) and was placed on probation. On appeal, Rodriguez challenges two of the conditions of her probation and the court’s order revoking her driver’s license. We find merit to this last contention, modify the judgment accordingly, and affirm in all other respects.
|
This case arises out of asbestos litigation. The plaintiffs are the widow and children of William Paulus, who died in December 2009 as a result of mesothelioma. Mr. Paulus was a plumber, and it is alleged that the mesothelioma was the result of his exposure to pipes coated with a substance containing asbestos, and that the pipes were manufactured and sold by J-M Manufacturing Co. (referred to here as “J-MM” and sometimes in quoted materials as “JM”).
Plaintiffs sued J-MM and others for wrongful death. During the pendency of that case J-MM and another defendant brought motions for summary adjudication in which they argued plaintiffs lacked evidence. In its opposition to these motions plaintiffs’ counsel filed memorandum papers which attached portions of the record from other litigation, including a memorandum from J-MM’s house counsel to an executive of that firm discussing the risk-benefit exposure of the firm with respect to its products containing asbestos. |
Robert Voskanyan (defendant) filed a timely notice of appeal following his entry of a plea of no contest to one count of driving recklessly while fleeing from a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2), one count of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a)) and one count of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)), and admitted that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of eight years. The notice of appeal states that it is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. Defendant did not seek a certificate of probable cause to raise any other issues.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023