CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Appellant, Donald Gilbert, a state prison inmate, filed a petition for writ of mandate requesting the trial court to order respondent, the Victim Compensation and Government Claim Board (Board), to consider his government tort claim as timely filed. The Board and respondent, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, demurred to the petition. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend finding that appellant did not meet the six-month deadline to file a claim with the Board and did not timely seek court relief after his claim was denied.
Appellant challenges this order on the ground that, under the “mailbox rule†for prison inmates, his tort claim was timely filed. Despite the applicability of the “mailbox rule,†the trial court found that appellant’s claim was untimely. However, that finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, appellant did seek court relief within six months of his claim being denied. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed. |
|
Alejandro Gonzalez Zavala was convicted of 17 counts of sexually abusing the three minor children of his girlfriend, whom we will refer to as mother.[1] The jury also found true the allegation that there were multiple victims within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (b).[2] He was sentenced to a total indeterminate term of 255 years to life.
He argues the trial court erred in excluding evidence of his lack of criminal record, there was insufficient evidence that four of the counts occurred in California, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to comply with Evidence Code section 782, the Rape Shield Law, which prevented introduction of a prior molestation suffered by one of the victims. We reject each of these arguments. |
|
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA, LLC (Financial) appeals an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of its lawsuit with Ozzy Okudan. Financial contends the court erred by determining the arbitration clause in an automobile purchase contract was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. We reverse with directions.[1] |
|
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. (Portfolio) appeals an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of its lawsuit with Shaun Trabert. Portfolio contends the court erred by determining the arbitration clause in an automobile purchase contract was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. We reverse with directions.[1]
|
|
Plaintiff, Transaction Wireless, Inc. (TWI), appeals a summary judgment for defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm) in this action for breach of written contract. TWI contends we must reverse the judgment because the trial court's order granting the motion violates Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 437c, subdivision (g) by not specifying the particular evidence on which it relied, and the court erred by finding TWI cannot prove damages measured by lost profits or unjust enrichment. We conclude the contentions lack merit, and thus we affirm the judgment.
|
|
Defendant Bennett Louis Kovac and Wayne Caskey murdered Gary Brooks in his shop in south Sacramento at about 3:24 a.m. on June 11, 2006. Convicted of first degree murder with an arming enhancement and sentenced to state prison for an indeterminate term of 25 years to life plus one year for the arming enhancement, defendant appeals. He contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him, (2) the court erred by excluding evidence of third party culpability and not giving pinpoint third party culpability instructions, (3) the court erred by denying defendant’s motion for mistrial based on juror misconduct, and (4) trial counsel was constitutionally deficient. Finding no prejudicial error, we affirm.
|
|
The mother, Lucy F., appeals from the juvenile court’s July 6, 2012 jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders as to her. The mother does not challenge the jurisdictional findings as to the father, Frank F. But she argues there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that she knew of the sexual abuse of an unrelated child by the father and failed to protect her daughter, Jasmine F. The mother challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d).[1] In addition, the mother contends the juvenile court erred in removing Jasmine from her custody. We affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders.
|
|
A jury found defendant and appellant Guillermo Parra (defendant) guilty on ten counts of aggravated sexual assault of a minor and two counts of rape. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress statements he made to a police investigator because prior to making the statements, defendant unambiguously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Defendant further contends that the trial court erred by failing to give instructions on lesser included offenses of rape. And defendant argues that the cumulative effect of these claimed errors deprived him of a fair trial.
We hold that because defendant did not unambiguously invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during the police interview in question, the trial court did not err in denying his suppression motion. We further hold that the trial court did not have a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses of rape. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction. |
|
Jose Fructuoso appeals from his conviction by jury verdict of second degree murder. He contends the trial court erred in requiring his testimony as a foundation for expert psychiatric testimony that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. He claims the prosecutor committed numerous incidents of prejudicial misconduct. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting DNA testimony in violation of his right to confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He asserts that the admission of a statement he made to a transporting police officer without readvisement of his Miranda[1] rights was error. He contends the trial court’s response to a jury question about the difference between first and second degree murder was inadequate. Finally, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of second degree murder, arguing that it instead supports a verdict of voluntary manslaughter committed in the heat of passion.
|
|
Appellant Jolian Ramez Ibrahim appeals from an order granting his wife, respondent Helen Mamaril Lamaria, a protective order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, imposing pendente lite custody and visitation orders regarding the couple’s three minor children, and making an initial custody determination of home-state jurisdiction in California under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. We conclude appellant has failed to discharge his burden of presenting an adequate record on appeal to enable us to review the jurisdictional finding, and that the interim custody orders are not appealable. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
|
|
Plaintiff Ron Batton, an employee of a construction subcontractor, alleges he sustained injuries while descending an unfinished stairway on a construction jobsite. Batton sued the general contractor, defendant Alten Construction, Inc. (Alten), for damages, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract (on a third party beneficiary theory). The trial court entered summary judgment for Alten, holding that Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette) and its progeny barred Batton’s negligence claims, and that Batton lacked standing to pursue his contract claim. Batton appeals. We conclude triable issues of material fact exist as to Batton’s negligence claims, but not as to his contract claim. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
|
|
The trial court granted defendant Mid-Century Insurance Company’s (respondent) motion for summary judgment in this action brought by plaintiff Konstantin Kupfer (appellant) asserting causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We affirm. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
