CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Christopher Ivan Dunlap was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine base for sale (count 1, Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and transportation of cocaine (count 2, Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). He admitted the allegations that he had suffered two prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170 subds. (a)-(d)) and served seven prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
The trial court imposed a sentence of 12 years in state prison, consisting of the upper term of 5 years on count 1, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus two consecutive one-year prior prison term enhancements. The court dismissed the remaining strike allegation, and stayed imposition of punishment in count 2 pursuant to section 654.

Plaintiffs and appellants Roger William Soderstedt, Jr., and Ruslan Daych appeal from an order denying class certification in the action they filed against their former employer, defendant and respondent CBIZ Southern California, LLC (CBIZ). As putative class representatives, they sought to certify a class of current and former employees assertedly misclassified by CBIZ as exempt from California's overtime laws. The trial court ruled that a class action was not superior in light of the evidence submitted, finding that appellants failed to establish a predominance of common questions of law or fact, numerosity or adequacy.

Bourgeois appeals his convictions for murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187), attempted murder (§§ 187/664), attempted robbery (§§ 211/664), and burglary (§ 459), contending that they should be reversed because the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady). We affirm the judgment.

Jose Antonio Avila appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction of first degree murder, with findings that he committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang and that a principal personally and intentionally used a firearm. Before this court appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. As we shall explain, the claim lacks merit, and accordingly, we affirm.

GOOD CAUSE appearing, the opinion filed May 5, 2011, in the above entitled matter is hereby modified as follows:
On page 10, first full paragraph, the last sentence reads: â€

Appellant American Diversified Properties, Inc. (ADP), brought an action against respondents RE/EX Valencia, Inc., dba Realty Executives (Realty Executives) and Sara Fincher-Schmidt (Schmidt) and Valleywide Escrow, Inc. (Valleywide Escrow), the last-named not being a party to this appeal. Realty Executives and Schmidt moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The trial court also awarded Realty Executives as the prevailing party $181,265.25 in attorney fees. We find there are triable issues of material fact and therefore reverse.

A modification decision.

A jury found Steven Shane Cisneros guilty of murder of the first degree. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.)[1] The jury also found true the special allegation that he used a deadly weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court found he suffered a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b)(1) & (c)(1)) and that he had been convicted of a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)). We affirm.

Mark Angelo Santa Anna (appellant) was charged with a number of crimes that took place during the period from April 2006 through July 2006 in the Pico Rivera area. After a jury trial, he was convicted of two counts of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187,[1] subd. (a), counts 1 & 10), one count of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664/211, count 2), two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), counts 4 & 13), three counts of robbery (§ 211, counts 5, 6, & 7), one count of residential burglary (§ 459, count 8), one count of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a), count 9), and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), counts 11 & 12). The jury found true the allegations that he had committed each of the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b), and that he had committed the robbery alleged in count 7 with two other principals and had entered a structure within the meaning of section 213, subdivision (a)(1). The jury also found true the allegations that he personally used a firearm in the commission of counts 4, 8, and 13 (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of counts 7 and 8 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); personally used a firearm in the commission of counts 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of counts 9 and 10 (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)); and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury in the commission of counts 9 and 10 (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). It also found that a principal personally used a firearm in counts 1 and 2 (§ 12022.53, subd. (b) & (e)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in counts 1 and 2 (§ 12022.53, subds. (c) & (e)). In a separate proceeding, appellant admitted that he had suffered one prior conviction within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and one prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). He was sentenced to 243 years to life. He appeals, raising numerous contentions, all of which we find to be without merit. We affirm the judgment.

This marital dissolution action between John Christopher Heubeck (husband) and Milagros Agatha Faraon Heubeck (wife) is before us for a second time. Previously, we affirmed a child support order but modified the date to which it was retroactive (Heubeck v. Heubeck (May 17, 2007, B186033) [nonpub. opn.]). In this case, husband appeals from an October 26, 2009 judgment of marital dissolution on reserved issues, a judgment which also incorporates a September 25, 2009 judgment on other reserved issues. Husband contends the trial court made various errors including those relating to calculation of spousal and child support. Wife moves for sanctions for a frivolous appeal. We affirm the judgment and deny the motion for sanctions.

A jury convicted Patrick Redman on two counts of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422).[1] On appeal, Redman contends the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to give the jury a unanimity instruction, and the evidence is insufficient to support one of the convictions. We affirm.

Defendants Deshon Britt and Milton Jones were charged with murder arising out of a shooting near a liquor store in Los Angeles. Trial was by dual juries. One jury found Jones guilty of second degree murder and firearm and gang allegations to be true. The other jury found Britt guilty of first degree murder and firearm and gang allegations to be true. The court sentenced Jones to 40 years to life and Britt to 50 years to life. Defendants, who timely appealed their convictions, raise a variety of alleged errors, including the erroneous admission of a recorded jailhouse telephone call as well as instructional errors. We affirm.

Angela Araujo sued defendants for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident. Though a jury found defendants primarily liable for the accident, the verdict led to a net recovery for defendants. Araujo appeals, claiming the trial court erred in excluding from evidence MRI films of her left shoulder and in denying a continuance of the trial. We affirm.

Defendant Russell Steven Brown appeals from denial of his August 2010 motion to modify the trial court's May 2003 victim restitution order. Defendant's counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have considered a supplemental brief submitted by defendant. We find no arguable issues and affirm.