CA Unpub Decisions

Jose Torres appeals from a judgment which sentences him to 35 years to life in state prison for shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court improperly denied his motion to discover the personnel files of the police officers who drafted the police report of the incident. We affirm the judgment.

Sohair Hanna (appellant) appeals from a judgment of the superior court denying her petition for writ of mandate. Through the writ of mandate, appellant sought to overturn a decision of the Dental Board of California (the Board) revoking appellant’s dental license. While acknowledging that she pled no contest to a felony count of Medi-Cal fraud, appellant argues that the penalty of license revocation was a manifest abuse of discretion. We find that the penalty imposed was authorized and fell within the Board’s discretion, therefore we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Annie Yoon (appellant) appeals from a final order after judgment. On December 27, 2011, respondent Rani Lee (respondent) filed a motion for an assignment order against appellant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.510 to 708.560. The motion was granted on January 24, 2012. Appellant challenges the order, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to rule on appellant’s evidentiary objections; allowing respondent to enforce a judgment which respondent had no standing to enforce; and granting assignment of unidentified potential claims that may occur in the future. We find no error, therefore we affirm the order.

A jury convicted defendant Reginald Von Reed of stalking and criminal threats. The trial court found true allegations that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of the “Three Strikes” law and Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and had served two prior prison terms within the scope of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). It sentenced him to nine years in prison, consisting of a second strike term of four years for criminal threats, plus a five-year serious felony enhancement.

Kenneth Jones appeals from the dismissal of his complaint against respondents All California Mortgage Fund, LLC, Richard Berger, and David Alan Levinson and Joan Pearl Levinson, Trustees of the Levinson Family Trust, after respondents' demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. We reverse.

Plaintiffs and appellants Dark Hall Productions, LLC (Dark Hall) and Matthew Arnold (Arnold) (collectively plaintiffs) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) after the trial court granted BOA’s motion to strike, without leave to amend, certain causes of action in plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint (4AC) and sustained, without leave to amend, BOA’s demurrer as to the remaining causes of action. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant Ever Vasquez appeals from the judgment following his convictions for robbery (Pen. Code,[1] § 211) and making criminal threats (§ 422). He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the victim’s testimony at trial regarding the details of a prior uncharged robbery allegedly committed by Vasquez against the same victim. We disagree. However, as the Attorney General concedes, pursuant to section 654 we must modify the sentence on the count for criminal threats to order that it be stayed, and not run concurrent to the sentence on the robbery offense, because the two crimes arose from one indivisible course of conduct. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiff and appellant Pacific Systems (plaintiff) appeals from a postjudgment order denying its motion for attorney fees incurred with the Law Offices of William G. Wells (Wells) under Civil Code section 1717. In an unpublished opinion, we reversed a previous trial court order denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees incurred with Wells and remanded the matter to the trial court to determine the amount of Wells’s fees, if any, to be awarded to plaintiff. (Pacific Systems v. Giant Skateboard Distribution et al. (Jun. 21, 2010, B211380) (Pacific Systems I).) Upon remand, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to set forth in its moving papers the amount of fees it was seeking, failed to timely provide any evidence of Wells’s hourly rate, time entries, billing memos, invoices, or work summaries to support any amount for attorney fees, and failed to explain how Wells could have represented plaintiff at any time after October 30, 2009, when the California State Bar ordered him to be on inactive status.
The record discloses no abuse of discretion by the trial court. We therefore affirm the order denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees incurred with Wells.

A jury convicted appellant Jose Lopez of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))[1] and attempted escape (§ 4532, subd. (b)(1)). At a subsequent sanity phase, the jury also found him sane at the time of the commission of both offenses.

Appellant Jared M. Williams challenges his criminal convictions of assault and battery arguing that the court should have granted him a continuance to secure the live testimony of the deputy sheriff who interviewed the victim and eyewitnesses. Appellant also argues the court committed evidentiary error. Finding no prejudice from these alleged errors, we affirm.

Appellants Vasilia Petrou and Andreas Andreou brought suit for medical malpractice and loss of consortium against respondents Dafna Trites, D.O., Women’s Healthcare Institute Medical Center, Inc. (WHIMC, the entity through which Dr. Trites provided her services), Waleed Doany, M.D., and Catholic Healthcare West, doing business as Northridge Hospital Medical Center (the Hospital).[1] Dr. Trites was Petrou’s obstetrician during her pregnancy, which began in 2006 and culminated in the birth of the couple’s daughter in 2007. Dr. Doany became her perinatologist in February 2007.[2]

Mother seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) directed to the juvenile court’s order issued at a contested six–month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 hearing as to her two children, both of whom were under the age of three when removed from her custody. She contends the juvenile court “abused its discretion by not providing [her] additional time to participate in reunification services despite a showing of extraordinary circumstances.” We shall deny the petition.

Appellant E. L. (Mother) has filed a petition for an extraordinary writ in which she challenges the juvenile court’s order scheduling a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26.[1] She argues that the trial court erred because it denied her request for unsupervised visits with L.L.

After appellant Frank Dean Allen pleaded no contest to a felony violation of Penal Code section 69[1] (threatening a police officer), the trial court denied probation and imposed the upper term of three years after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors. Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term based on inadmissible evidence or aggravating factors not supported by the record. We disagree and affirm.