CA Unpub Decisions

In this breach of brokerage agreement action, defendants and appellants John Hnatio and Powerhouse Associates, Inc. (brokers), appeal from a $291,885.55 judgment against them in favor of plaintiff and respondent AmericaHomeKey, Inc., after the trial court granted AmericaHomeKey's motion for summary adjudication of the first seven causes of action of the second amended complaint.[1] Brokers contend: (1) AmericaHomeKey failed to meet its burden of showing no triable issue exists concerning any cause of action; (2) the award of attorney fees was unauthorized; and (3) the commissions should be deducted from the damages awarded. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Kam Y. Tse, D.O., appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in favor of plaintiff and appellant Linda K. Yee in this medical malpractice action. Dr. Tse contends the trial court abused its discretion by: 1) allowing Yee to argue a different theory of causation at trial than she did in summary judgment proceedings; 2) excluding Yee's settlement with other defendants as impeachment evidence at trial; and 3) excluding evidence of payments for Yee's medical care through a private insurer's Medicare Advantage plan that was admissible under Civil Code section 3333.1.[1] We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Yee to change her theory of causation or excluding evidence of settlement. However, we conclude there was no evidence or authority to exclude evidence of payments for Yee's medical care that was admissible under section 3333.1. Therefore, we reverse the portion of the judgment awarding economic damages with directions to hold a new trial on the issue of past and future economic damages.
In Yee's cross-appeal, she contends that she was entitled to a jury determination of the gross amount of her future damages in order for the trial court to properly order periodic payments. Based on our directions to hold a new trial to determine the amount of Yee's economic damages, this issue is moot.

T.H. (mother) seeks writ review of an order terminating reunification services and setting for September 13, 2011, a plan hearing for her nearly two-year-old son, J.G. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] We issued an order to show cause, and deem the response of real party in interest the Alameda County Social Services Agency (agency) the return. Mother challenges reasonable-services and no-return findings. We find them to be supported, and therefore affirm.

James I. Mesa (Mesa) appeals from a judgment of conviction imposed after a jury found him guilty of numerous crimes. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.

Donnie Lee Arnold appeals from a judgment sentencing him to prison for four years after he pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine for sale and admitted an allegation that he has suffered a prior conviction under the Three Strikes Law. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; Pen. Code, § 1170.12.) His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.

Appellant Kevin Wayne Bushnell appeals from his convictions following a jury trial for evading an officer, with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), a felony (count 1),, and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1))[1], a felony (count 2). The sole issue he raises on appeal is that he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to move, under section 1538.5, to suppress evidence obtained by the police during an illegal search of his personal property. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

This is an appeal from final judgment following the conviction by a jury of defendant Reginald Weaver for the felony offense of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant and the misdemeanor offenses of trespass and child endangerment. In challenging the judgment, defendant contends the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that his out-of-court oral admissions should be viewed with caution and improperly permitted the prosecutor to call him as a rebuttal witness. He further contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by repeatedly misinforming the jury regarding the reasonable doubt standard and by eliciting inadmissible testimony regarding the victim's involvement with a battered women's organization. For reasons set forth below, we affirm.

After the preliminary examination, defendant Angel Botello was held to answer to the charges of felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1))[1] and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§ 12316, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant subsequently filed a Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)) for the discovery of two City of Soledad police officers' personnel records relating to, among other things, falsification of police reports, dishonesty, and instances of fabrication of evidence or evidence tampering. In support of his motion, defendant asserted the defense theory that he did not have possession of a firearm and police officers had fabricated the firearm evidence by planting the gun. On May 27, 2011, the trial court denied the Pitchess motion on the ground that defendant's alternative factual scenario--that the police officers had planted the gun--was â€

Defendant Patrick Joseph Mironconk appeals from an order revoking and reinstating probation on the original terms and conditions. His sole contention on appeal is that the â€

Defendant Gerardo Mendez Reyes was sentenced to prison after he violated probation in two separate cases. On appeal, he contends that (1) the superior court â€

Defendant Joseph Osorio was convicted after a court trial of false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, § 236), criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), and forcible sexual penetration by a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)). The court also found true that defendant had personally used a firearm in the commission of these offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)).[1] Defendant was sentenced to 12 years in state prison.[2] On appeal, his sole challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the sexual penetration count. He claims that there was not sufficient evidence of the requisite specific intent. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Defendant Bernard Gari became a naturalized citizen of the United States on October 4, 1989. That same day, in support of his petition for citizenship he had previously filed on March 14, 1988, he filed form N‑445A in which he asserted he had not, inter alia, â€

A jury convicted defendant Paul Layton Keesling of one count of burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found to be true allegations of 12 prior strikes. The court sentenced defendant to 45 years to life in state prison.
Defendant contends the court committed prejudicial error under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 352 by admitting evidence concerning the detainment of defendant while in the midst of certain uncharged conduct four months after the charged offense, purportedly to show defendant's common scheme or plan in connection with the charged offense. Defendant also asserts the court erred by refusing defendant's request to represent himself, even though defendant waited to make such request until the date of his sentencing hearing. We affirm the judgment.