CA Unpub Decisions

Jonathan Cabrera appeals his conviction by jury of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.)[1] Appellant admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and a prior prison term enhancement (§667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to 13 years state prison. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial and abused its discretion in excluding evidence that his twin brother was convicted of burglary in 2009. We affirm.

Henry K. Vaughn appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on one count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).[1] Appellant challenges his conviction on three grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel, the alleged violation of his right to a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community, and the trial court’s finding that he was competent to stand trial. We find none of his claims meritorious and therefore affirm.

A jury found defendant and appellant Jose Jesus Delgado guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), and found true the allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a handgun causing great bodily injury and death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 40 years to life in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting expert gang testimony, restricting cross examination of witnesses, and making “asymmetrical evidentiary rulings.” We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Ryan Kinrade appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury. The trial court placed Kinrade on probation for a term of three years, on condition he serve 120 days in county jail.
Kinrade contends sentence on one of the offenses should have been stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654,[1] and imposition of a $240 restitution fine violated ex post facto principles. He also requests that we review the sealed record of the trial court’s Pitchess[2] examination of police personnel records to determine whether the court abused its discretion by failing to order sufficient disclosure. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216.) We modify the judgment to impose only one restitution fine, and otherwise affirm.

Ralph Gomez appeals from a judgment which sentences him to seven years in state prison for transportation of heroin and cocaine base for sale. Gomez challenges various trial court evidentiary rulings, each of which we find meritless. We further find the trial court did not err when it failed to stay the sentence for transportation of cocaine base under Penal Code section 654. However, we find the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Gomez’s motion pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand with directions. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Donald Kent (Kent) and his wife Lisa Kent appeal a summary judgment in favor of Warren Pumps, LLC (Warren), in a personal injury action involving exposure to asbestos. Plaintiffs contend Warren failed to satisfy its initial burden as the party moving for summary judgment to show that they could not establish that Kent was exposed to asbestos in products manufactured or supplied by Warren. Plaintiffs also contend the evidence creates a triable issue of fact on this issue in any event. We conclude that Warren failed to satisfy its initial burden as the party moving for summary judgment and therefore will reverse the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Moises Maldonado appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, kidnapping, felony false imprisonment and assault with a deadly weapon involving two victims. He contends that as to the charges involving one of the victims: (1) the kidnapping conviction was not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the false imprisonment conviction must be reversed because it is a lesser included offense of kidnapping. In addition, defendant contends, and the People agree, that the matter must be remanded to the trial court for imposition of certain mandatory fines. We affirm the kidnapping conviction, reverse the false imprisonment conviction and remand for the trial court to impose the requisite fines.

Plaintiff and appellant Coby Goodman appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. following the trial court’s sustaining of defendant’s demurrer to the second amended complaint (SAC). Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred because he stated facts sufficient to constitute the causes of action pleaded in the SAC: breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and violations of unfair competition law (UCL), Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. We reverse the judgment.

The Organic Panificio, LLC and its owner and manager Charles Colby brought this action against the County of Los Angeles, several of its employees and several private parties after the County obtained a preliminary injunction ordering plaintiffs to cease operating a nightclub without the required conditional use permit. The basis of the complaint was that the County was enforcing its zoning ordinance against plaintiffs’ business while allowing similarly situated businesses to operate nightclubs without the required permits. The trial court sustained the demurrers of the County and its employees to four of the five causes of action without leave to amend and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the fifth cause of action. The court entered judgment for all defendants and plaintiffs filed a timely appeal. We affirm the judgment.

Appellants Bob Yari and Davand Holdings, LLC appeal from an order after judgment adding them as defendants in the underlying action of Paul Haggis, Inc., et al. v. Persik Productions, Inc. (L.A. Sup. Ct. No. BC381582 [“Haggis v. Persik”].)[1] They contend that the order is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree and therefore reverse.

Plaintiff Helen Jones brought this action individually and as personal representative of the estate of her son, John Horton. Horton died in March 2009 while incarcerated at the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail. Plaintiff filed a complaint in February 2010 against the County of Los Angeles (County), Sheriff Leroy Baca, and doe defendants. She later identified and sued Deputy William Penhollow and Sergeant Cliff Yates as doe defendants. Deputy Penhollow and Sergeant Yates filed a joint motion for summary judgment, which the court granted.[1]
Plaintiff limits the issues on appeal to the court’s ruling on causes of action for wrongful death, violation of civil rights, and negligence against both Deputy Penhollow and Sergeant Yates. As well, she argues the court erred in ruling for Sergeant Yates on a negligent supervision cause of action. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The judgment for Sergeant Yates on the negligence cause of action is affirmed but reversed with respect to Deputy Penhollow. The judgment for both officers on the wrongful death and violation of civil rights causes of action is reversed. The judgment for Sergeant Yates on the negligent supervision cause of action is also reversed.

After a three-week trial, Shawn Simpson and Marcellus Prothro were convicted of murder and attempted murder. Defendants are members of the 135 Piru gang, which at the relevant time was “at war” with the rival Barrio 13, or B13, gang. The prosecutor argued the essence of this case was as follows: “[T]wo 135 gangsters got in a car, they drove to the shot caller of the rival gang’s house, they fired shots and drove away.” The murder victim, Juan Llanos, was a member of Barrio 13, and was at the top of the gang hierarchy in a position known as “shot caller.” Llanos was shot as he stood outside his mother’s home. Llanos’s cousin, Daniel Gutierrez, stood near Llanos when Llanos was shot.
Defendants raise numerous challenges to their convictions. We modify defendants’ sentences, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Helen Jones brought this action individually and as personal representative of the estate of her son, John Horton. Horton died in March 2009 while incarcerated at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Men’s Central Jail. Plaintiff filed a complaint in February 2010 against the County of Los Angeles (County), Sheriff Leroy Baca, and doe defendants. She later identified and sued Deputy Christopher Kidder as a doe defendant. The County and Sheriff Baca filed a motion for summary judgment. Deputy Kidder filed a separate motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings for all three defendants, and plaintiff appealed.
We affirm in part and reverse in part. The judgment for Sheriff Baca is affirmed. The judgment for the County on causes of action for wrongful death and negligence is reversed. As well, the judgment for Deputy Kidder on the causes of action for wrongful death, negligence, and violation of civil rights is reversed. In all other respects, we affirm.
facts and procedure

This is an action by writer-director Paul Haggis and others involved in the Oscar-winning film Crash for compensation they claim is due them under their contract with the film’s principal backer, Persik Productions, Inc. In a bench trial the court found for the plaintiffs and awarded them over $12,000,000 in damages and prejudgment interest. We conclude that appellants have not carried their burden of showing prejudicial error, and we therefore affirm.