CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Cooley Equipment Corp. (Cooley) appeals judgments entered after the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants Otay Valley Quarry LLC (OVQ), JJJ&K Investments, LP, OV Three One LLC, and JJJ&K Investments Two, LLC (together JJJ&K), concluding there were no triable issues of material fact on Cooley's causes of action to enforce mechanic's and mining liens and that OVQ and JJJ&K were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, Cooley contends the trial court erred because there are triable issues of material fact regarding whether: (1) Cooley properly served the statutorily-required 20-day preliminary notice of lien on the owner or reputed owner of the Chula Vista quarry property on which its leased equipment was located; (2) Cooley could have a mechanic's lien for its leased equipment used by the lessee on the quarry property; and (3) Cooley could have a mining lien for its leased equipment used by the lessee on the quarry property. As we explain below, the trial court properly granted OVQ's and JJJ&K's motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiff Ernest Calhoon appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Elite Show Services, Inc. (Elite) in his action against Elite and other defendants. On appeal, Calhoon appears to contend the trial court erred by: (1) rejecting his substitution of attorney form and denying him representation by his counsel; (2) not scheduling a hearing on his ex parte application to continue the hearing on Elite's motion for summary judgment; (3) denying him his right to be heard on important issues, including discovery and sanctions issues; and (4) denying his motion to compel discovery and related sanctions request.[1] However, because Calhoon has not complied with established rules for appellate briefing, we conclude he has waived or forfeited all of his contentions on appeal.

Ramiro Basquez appeals the judgment entered after he pled guilty to forgery (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)).[1] The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted appellant three years of formal probation with terms and conditions that included 180 days of confinement in county jail. Appellant contends that the court erred by failing to award him conduct credits pursuant to the amended version of section 4019 that went into effect on October 1, 2011. We affirm.

Jose Carmona appeals from an order committing him to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) after a court trial. (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.)[1] Appellant contends that his treatment at a parole outpatient clinic (POC) did not satisfy the MDO requirement that he receive 90 days treatment in the year preceding his June 11, 2011 parole or release date. (§ 2962, subd. (c).) We affirm. (§ 2964, subd. (a); People v. Achrem (Jan. 29, 2013, B236100) __ Cal.App.4th __, __.)

Samuel Quinones appeals a judgment committing him to the California Department of Mental Health (CDMH) for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (Pen. Code, § 2962),[1] following his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)).
We conclude, among other things, that Quinones received 90 days of treatment for his disorder. (§ 2962, subd. (c).) We affirm.

Earnell Hunt appeals from an order committing him to the State Department of Mental Health (DMH) for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen Code, § 2962 et seq.) [1] Appellant claims that the evidence does not support the finding that his severe mental disorder (pedophilia) is not in remission, that he received 90 days of treatment during the year preceding his parole release date, or that he represents a substantial risk of harm to others. (§ 2962, subd. (d)(1).) We affirm.

Dwight Niblett appeals from his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, asserting two claims of instructional error. We affirm.

Thomas Eber Sizemore appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer (Pen. Code,[1] § 245, subd. (c)), felony evading (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that appellant had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant was sentenced to eight years eight months in state prison. He contends the evidence is insufficient to support his assault conviction. We affirm.

Glindia Barley attempts to appeal from a judgment after jury trial ordering that she take nothing on her complaint against defendants City of Inglewood and Celia Islas. Because Barley’s appeal was untimely, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for revocation of pro hac vice status. We affirm.

Appellant Arthur Perez challenges his conviction for attempted murder on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence and evidentiary error. We reject his contentions and affirm.

Albert Manuel Castro appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), count 1),[1] assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 3), and aggravated mayhem (§ 205, count 7). The jury found to be true with respect to count 1 the allegation that the attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation (§ 664, subd. (a)), with respect to all counts the allegations that the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and the allegation that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and with respect to counts 1 and 7 the allegation that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate state prison term of 40 years to life. Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erroneously admitted his statements made to police after he unambiguously invoked his Miranda[2] right to counsel, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, (2) his statements to police should have been suppressed because the Miranda warning he received failed to advise him that anything he said could be used against him in court, (3) admission in evidence of appellant’s involuntary statements to police violated his due process rights under the California and United States Constitutions, (4) there is insufficient evidence to support appellant’s aggravated mayhem conviction, and (5) the trial court erroneously failed to award him presentence conduct credits. Appellant also requests that this court conduct an independent in camera examination of the Pitchess[3] hearing.
We modify the conduct credits and otherwise affirm.

A jury found defendants Esequiel Contreras and Victor M. Zermeno guilty of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a).[1] The jury found that the murder was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang, within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). In Contreras’s case the jury found that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the murder, causing great bodily injury or death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (e)(1). With respect to Zermeno, the jury found that, in the commission of the murder, Zermeno personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c) and (d). The trial court sentenced both Contreras and Zermeno to state prison for 25 years to life plus 25 years on the firearm use enhancement.
Zermeno appeals on the grounds that: (1) there was insufficient evidence that he was guilty of first degree murder; and (2) the testimony of the gang expert was hearsay and should have been suppressed. Contreras appeals on the ground that the trial court’s erroneous admission of hearsay evidence of a jail phone call infringed upon his right to due process and a fair trial. Contreras also joins in the arguments made by Zermeno to the extent those arguments apply to him and affect the judgment in his case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5).)

Albert Manuel Castro appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), count 1),[1] assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 3), and aggravated mayhem (§ 205, count 7). The jury found to be true with respect to count 1 the allegation that the attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation (§ 664, subd. (a)), with respect to all counts the allegations that the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and the allegation that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and with respect to counts 1 and 7 the allegation that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate state prison term of 40 years to life. Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erroneously admitted his statements made to police after he unambiguously invoked his Miranda[2] right to counsel, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, (2) his statements to police should have been suppressed because the Miranda warning he received failed to advise him that anything he said could be used against him in court, (3) admission in evidence of appellant’s involuntary statements to police violated his due process rights under the California and United States Constitutions, (4) there is insufficient evidence to support appellant’s aggravated mayhem conviction, and (5) the trial court erroneously failed to award him presentence conduct credits. Appellant also requests that this court conduct an independent in camera examination of the Pitchess[3] hearing.
We modify the conduct credits and otherwise affirm.