CA Unpub Decisions

Craig E. Caldwell, II, plaintiff, appeals from an order denying his Code of Civil Procedure,[1] section 473, subdivision (d) motion to set aside orders as void and moot. Plaintiff sought to set aside: a December 30, 2005 order granting judgment on the pleadings; a July 7, 2006 order determining distribution of residue concerning the living trust; and a nunc pro tunc order dated July 12, 2006, making the July 7, 2006 order retroactive to the December 30, 2005 order. The challenged orders were entered after it was determined plaintiff's father, Craig E. Caldwell (Mr. Caldwell) violated the living trust's no contest clause. We conclude the probate court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the order under review.

Dawn Hadsell appeals from the denial of her petition for a writ of administrative mandamus challenging the suspension of her driver's license by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08 percent. Hadsell contends the superior court's findings are not supported by the evidence. We affirm.

Appellant Robyn Bernstein appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for modification of spousal support paid by respondent Jacob Bernstein.[1] Robyn contends: 1) the dissolution judgment permitted modification of the spousal support order without showing a â€

Following a jury trial, defendant and appellant Michael Tu (defendant) was convicted of cultivating marijuana and placed on probation for three years. On appeal, he raises numerous challenges to his conviction, one of which is from a nonappealable order and the remainder of which, as explained below, have no merit. We therefore dismiss defendant's appeal from the nonappealable order and otherwise affirm the judgment of conviction.

Geary Turner was convicted by a jury of one count of robbery. On appeal Turner contends the trial court erred in denying his request for self-representation and in limiting the testimony of his eyewitness identification expert. We affirm.

Osvaldo Garcia appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), with the true finding he had used a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 120222, subd. (b)(1)). Garcia contends his constitutional right to due process was violated because the court permitted the People to seek irrelevant evidence about his sexual orientation and to imply he enjoyed being sexually assaulted by his victim, Jose Becerra. We affirm.

The surety, Sharkey's Bail Bonds, challenges an order denying its motion pursuant to Penal Code[1] section 1305, subdivision (g)[2] to vacate a forfeiture order after defendant, Toros Aslanyan, failed to appear for a criminal matter. The surety claims the motion should have been granted because defendant had been located in Russia but the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office refused to request extradition. We affirm because the trial court correctly concluded the absence of an extradition treaty (18 U.S.C. § 3181) between the United States of America and Russia precluded relief from the bail forfeiture under section 1305, subdivision (g).

Jeffrey Seigel, the administrator of the Estate of Marcelle Filson, filed a lawsuit against Renee Sonsino, Filson's former conservator, for elder abuse and neglect. The trial court sustained Sonsino's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action. We reverse.

Following his conviction by a jury of one count of first degree residential burglary, defendant Daniel Echavarria admitted the four prior felony convictions and prior prison terms alleged in the information. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (b).) He received a 10-year sentence for the present offense.[1]
Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erroneously admitted â€

In the underlying action, respondent Richardson & Patel, LLP (R&P), sought to recover unpaid legal fees from appellant Provatek Acquisition Corp. (PAC), and also requested a declaration that it had never acted as legal counsel for appellants David Coloris and Graham Phillips. Appellants asserted claims against R&P and respondent Brandon Rath for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty; in addition, appellants sought a declaration that respondents were entitled to no fees for their legal representation. After the trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of respondents on all of appellants' claims, R&P dismissed its claims without prejudice, and judgment was entered in respondents' favor. We conclude the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication on appellants' claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as on PAC's claim for declaratory relief. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment with respect to these claims.

Defendant, Jason Andrew Smith, appeals from his second degree murder conviction after a jury trial. (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a).) The jury found defendant personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d).) A 7-year old eyewitness testified defendant committed the murder. Defendant was sentenced to 40 years to life in state prison. Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to excuse the jury panel based on alleged discriminatory selection of jurors. (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287 (Wheeler); Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 89 (Batson).) We affirm the judgment.

Geary Turner was convicted by a jury of one count of robbery. On appeal Turner contends the trial court erred in denying his request for self-representation and in limiting the testimony of his eyewitness identification expert. We affirm.

Defendant Duane Barnett appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of attempted murder and assault with a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(2).)[1] The jury also found that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, that defendant personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury to the victim, and that the crimes were committed with the specific intent to benefit a criminal street gang. (§§ 664, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b) through (d), 12022.5, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) He appeals, contending there is insufficient evidence to support the attempted murder conviction and the gang allegation finding, counsel provided ineffective assistance, and the trial court committed sentencing error. Finding no merit to his contentions, we affirm.

Andre Deloje appeals from an order in this marital dissolution action directing the court-appointed receiver, David J. Pasternak, to sell two real properties owned by Deloje to satisfy court orders for temporary spousal support, attorney fees, forensic accounting fees and Pasternak's receiver's fees. Deloje contends the court erred in confirming the sale because those properties, which were held in Deloje's private individual retirement account, were exempt from execution pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 704.115.[1] We affirm.[2]