CA Unpub Decisions

Javier Solis appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to one count of carrying a concealed firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (a)(2).) Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) Court affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a criminal case arising from an attack on one victim by lighting her on fire, followed by a knife attack on a bystander victim. At the end of a trial on six counts (including two counts of attempted murder), a jury convicted Marquice Stuart of one count of assault with a deadly weapon (the knife victim), and one count of arson causing great bodily injury and one count of aggravated mayhem (both as to the fire victim). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that Stuart had a prior serious felony conviction. The trial court thereafter sentenced Stuart to an aggregate term of 11 years to life in state prison. Stuart then filed the appeal that comes before us today. We reject Stuart's claims that his trial was tainted by juror misconduct, and that the evidence was not sufficient to support his aggravated mayhem conviction, and affirm the judgment.

This lawsuit arises out of a car accident in which a car driven by defendant Ana Luz Gonzalez collided with a car driven by plaintiff Raitcho Vladimirov. Vladimirov's wife, plaintiff Lilia Mircheva, was a passenger in his vehicle. Plaintiffs sued Gonzalez for negligence, contending she caused the accident when she attempted to make a left turn and struck their car, causing Vladimirov to lose control and drive onto a sidewalk, striking and killing a pedestrian. Gonzalez asserted that the accident was in fact caused by Vladimirov's driving at an excessive speed. At trial, over plaintiffs' objection, Gonzalez's accident reconstruction expert testified that a dent in the roof of plaintiffs' car was caused by the pedestrian's body striking it, thus tending to show that Vladimirov's speed was excessive. The jury returned a defense verdict for Gonzalez.

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident involving a sports utility vehicle (SUV) and a pedestrian. Appellant Yu Zhang suffered a fractured ankle after respondent Yamin Li ran over his foot. On appeal, Zhang's principal challenges are to the sufficiency of the evidence of the jury finding that he was 65 percent at fault for the accident and to the amount of damages awarded to him. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

Tu My Tong sued Attorney Fred Rucker for legal malpractice. The trial court entered judgment on a jury's special verdict in favor of Rucker. Tong appeals. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Elnathan Washington appeals his conviction for one count of offering false evidence (Pen. Code,[1] § 132) and one count of preparing false documentary evidence (§ 134). On appeal, Washington contends that the prosecution improperly exercised its three of its seven peremptory challenges to excuse African-American prospective jurors in violation of People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler). Washington also claims that the trial court erred in failing to strike two prior prison term sentencing enhancements pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). Court conclude that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to correct certain sentencing errors consistent with the parties' sentencing agreement, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Appellants Rosemary Zubowicz and Gary Gordon, acting on behalf of themselves and a class of nurses and technical care specialists, filed a complaint alleging that the Hospital Association of Southern California (HASC) and several hospitals belonging to the HASC conspired to depress nurse wages throughout Southern California in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 16720 et. seq.). Specifically, Appellants allege that, in an effort to offset overtime costs resulting from the â€

S.O. (father) appeals from an order that terminated the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court over his children, T.H. and V.O., and placed them in the physical custody of their mother, S.S. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4.)[1] The judgment included an exit order allowing supervised visitation by father â€

Vincent Anthony Ciccone appeals from a judgment placing him on felony probation after a jury convicted him of receiving a stolen motor vehicle and evading an officer. He argues that the judgment must be reversed because some jurors saw him transported to the courtroom while in custody and the court declined to issue an order forbidding the Sheriff's Department from continuing this practice. He also contends his conviction for receiving stolen property must be reversed because it is inconsistent with a verdict of acquittal on a charge of taking or driving a vehicle which arose from the same incident. Court affirm.

Defendant Craig Peter Salazar (appellant) pled no contest to assault with a firearm and admitted a firearm use enhancement. The trial court sentenced him to a six-year prison term. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred by not giving reasons for its sentencing choice and because the court did not recognize it had discretion to impose a mitigated prison term without finding mitigating facts. Court reject his contentions and affirm.

Defendant James Mitchell LeFever (appellant) was sentenced to seven years in state prison following the revocation of his probation. Pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.2a, he contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order execution of the previously imposed and suspended prison term. Court reject the contention and affirm.

Slim Valentine Manai was convicted by jury of forcible oral copulation, assault with a deadly weapon, sexual battery, and criminal threats against two victims. Manai contended that the sexual activity was consensual and that the allegations that he degraded the victims and used force and violence were fabrications. He argues the trial court erred by: (1) admitting evidence that he had committed a prior sexual assault in Paris in 1996; (2) excluding evidence that the complaining witnesses had an intimate relationship; (3) failing to instruct the jury that it should consider promises of immunity or leniency when evaluating the witnesses' testimony; (4) failing to instruct the jury on the corpus delicti rule; (5) failing to remove a juror for cause due to misconduct during voir dire and during trial; and (6) imposing excessive restitution and parole revocation fines. Court agree that the restitution and parole revocation fines must be reduced, but otherwise reject Manai's challenges to his conviction and affirm.

After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of three felony counts of robbery in the second degree (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)).[1] The jurors deadlocked on allegations that defendant had personally used a firearm in the commission of each robbery (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and the trial court subsequently granted the People's request for dismissal of the firearm allegations. The trial court imposed a total term of five years in the state prison.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following the California Supreme Court's direction in People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 110, we provide â€

Defendant Paul Frances Reardon, M.D., appeals from the court's order compelling him to comply with an investigational subpoena of the Medical Board of California (the Board), a unit of the Department of Consumer Affairs (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 101, subd. (b)), whose acting director is plaintiff Patricia Harris.[1] The Board seeks to interview Reardon about his possession of less than an ounce of marijuana on November 13, 2007. Court affirm.