CA Unpub Decisions

Kent appeals challenging two of the conditions of probation: condition 10g requiring probation officer approval of his residence, and condition 6n, a search condition that includes searches of computers and recordable media. At sentencing, Kent objected to a portion of condition 6n, but did not object to condition 10g. We will find Kent's challenge to condition 10g has been forfeited for failure to raise it in the trial court. As to the challenge to the portion of condition 6n, relating to computers, we find no nexus in the offense, Kent's criminal history or rehabilitative needs to support the challenged portion of condition 6n. Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to strike the challenged portion and to modify the judgment accordingly.

Defendants Puracyp, Inc. (Company), Mark Dale and Judy Raucy (together Defendants) appeal a judgment granting plaintiff Kyle Kramer declaratory and specific performance relief in his breach of contract action against them. In a prior appeal in this case, we reversed the trial court's original judgment in favor of Defendants and remanded the matter with directions that the court grant Kramer's request for declaratory relief and conduct further proceedings on his request for specific performance consistent with our opinion. (Kramer v. Puracyp, Inc. (Mar. 18, 2015, D065400) [nonpub. opn.] (Kramer I).) After remand of the matter, the court conducted further proceedings and concluded Kramer had proven he had no adequate legal remedy and that specific performance was an appropriate remedy for Defendants' breach of contract for the transfer of 20 percent of the shares of stock in Company, a closely held corporation. On appeal, Defendants contend the court erred by granting Kra

A juvenile court declared 19-year-old H.A. a ward of the court after H. admitted to committing felony burglary when he was 17 years old. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The court placed H. on adult probation. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found the victim's losses were $75,647 and ordered H. to pay this amount in victim restitution.
H. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion because the restitution amount was not supported by substantial evidence. We reject this contention and affirm the juvenile court's order.

A jury found defendant and appellant Kedrin Haas guilty of attempted first degree burglary (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 459 & 664; count 1), and disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4); count 2). The court sentenced defendant to three years' formal probation.
On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the alleged lesser included and lesser related offense of attempted trespass, and when it refused to give a similar pinpoint instruction, in connection with count 1; that the prosecutor prejudicially erred during closing argument by misstating the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof; and that certain probation conditions imposed on him are allegedly overbroad. Affirmed.

Mickael Deandre Webb appeals a judgment following resentencing after it was discovered Webb was originally sentenced under a former version of the One Strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61)[1] instead of the version of the statute applicable in October 2010, when Webb committed the crimes of sexual penetration causing great bodily injury. When the One Strike law was amended in September 2010, the circumstance of committing great bodily injury was moved to subdivision (d) from subdivision (e).[2] The trial court determined Webb's original sentence was unauthorized because he should have been sentenced under subdivision (a) (requiring punishment of 25 years to life if a specified offense was committed under one of the circumstances listed in subdivision (d)), rather than under subdivision (b) (requiring punishment of 15 years to life if a specified offense was committed under one of the circumstances listed in subdivision (e)). Webb's aggregate prison term increased from 31 years t

Norman Karel appeals from an order denying his petition to compel Daniel Dicarlo and AFM Fine Restaurants Corporation, Inc., a California corporation (AFM), to arbitrate his claims under a written "Agreement Among Shareholders" (Agreement). The trial court denied Karel's petition on the basis that he waived his right to arbitrate his disputes with Dicarlo and AFM (together Respondents) under the terms of the Agreement. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding of waiver, we will affirm the order.

A.C., mother of the minors J.N. and J.K., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying her petition for modification (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388; undesignated statutory references are to this code), and terminating parental rights as to J.K. She contends the court erred in denying her petition without a hearing. We shall affirm.

Defendant Kelly Deanne Bell pleaded no contest to multiple drug-related charges. She also admitted allegations she served three prior terms in prison. The trial court struck one of the prior prison term enhancements and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years to be served as a split sentence: 913 days in custody and 912 days on mandatory supervision.
Defendant raises three claims on appeal: the trial court erred in (1) failing to strike the remaining prior prison term enhancements; (2) imposing penalty assessments on the laboratory fee imposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a); and (3) imposing a term of probation that is unconstitutionally vague. We accept the People's concession that defendant's prior prison term enhancements must be stricken, but conclude defendant's remaining claims lack merit. We will modify the judgment, affirm the judgment as modified, and direct the trial court to amend the abstra

Defendant Delina Lynn Williams stabbed Jessica Brock with a paring knife more than three dozen times in the head, neck, chest, and back, piercing her heart and spinal cord in the process. A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and found she personally used a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. She was sentenced to serve an indeterminate prison term of 25 years to life plus a consecutive determinate term of one year in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the evidence was not sufficient to support her first degree murder conviction on either a premeditated murder or a murder by torture theory; and (2) the trial court prejudicially erred and violated defendant’s federal constitutional rights by admitting into evidence testimony regarding several prior acts of domestic violence committed by defendant under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b).[1]
We affirm. As we explain, the evidence sufficiently established defenda

Defendant Robert Beckwith pled no contest to two drunk driving offenses and driving with a suspended license. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike his 1995 strike conviction for burglary and sentenced him to a total state prison term of eight years. Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and contends on appeal that the prosecution wrongly withdrew a plea offer carrying a stipulated sentence of four years in state prison. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to strike his prior strike conviction for sentencing purposes. We affirm.

On October 29, 1998, a jury convicted appellant Ronald Dave Renteria of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a))[1] and escaping from custody (§ 4532, subd. (b)(1)). As to the carjacking, the jury found true the allegation that appellant personally used a firearm (a handgun) to commit the offense (§ 12022.5). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true prior strike and prison term allegations. The court sentenced appellant to a total state prison term of 69 years to life: 27 years on the carjacking count under the Three Strikes law, plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement; and 25 years to life on the escaping from custody count under the Three Strikes law as a third strike, plus five years for a prior serious felony conviction and two years for two prior felony drug convictions.

Carlos Juan Switt appeals from a judgment and 11-year prison sentence, following his conviction for resisting a police officer. He contends the trial court erred in denying his request for an instruction on self-defense or defense of another. He further contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his request to strike a prior “strike” conviction. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Defendants and appellants Robert C. Burlison, Jr., Walter R. Luostari, and Burlison & Luostari challenge a trial court order denying their posttrial motion to expunge abstract of judgment and writ of execution.[1] Because defendants never gave plaintiff and appellant Sandra Cardet (Cardet) a full, unconditional offer, we affirm.

Samuel G. Blanco appeals from a judgment and 11-year prison sentence, following his convictions for attempted robbery, grand theft, six counts of second degree robbery and nine counts of conspiracy to commit robbery. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support one of the robbery convictions. He further contends that with respect to the charges of conspiracy to commit robbery, the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of conspiracy to commit theft. For the reasons set forth below, we find no error and, accordingly, affirm.