CA Unpub Decisions

Manuel Bojorquez entered a Wal-Mart store in Long Beach and removed several items from the store without attempting to pay for them. He pleaded no contest to one count of commercial burglary and admitted a prior strike in return for dismissal of other counts. The trial court sentenced him to six years in prison in conformity with the plea agreement and imposed a $1,200 restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), an equal, stayed parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $30 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). On these fees the court imposed a $120 penalty assessment under Penal Code section 1464 (section 1464) and Government Code section 76000.

Appellant Adrian Reed was charged by information with one count of possession of cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5.) After the superior court denied his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, Reed pleaded no contest to an amended information charging him with possession for sale of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.) On October 19, 2009, the superior court sentenced appellant to state prison for the low term of two years, ordered payment of fines and assessments totaling $405, and awarded 144 days of presentence custody credits (96 actual days and 48 days of good conduct/work credit). On October 23, 2009, Reed filed a timely notice of appeal.
Reed challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained by warrantless search. Because the facts in the record do not justify the search, Court reverse the conviction.

In 2002, the state began investigating perchlorate contamination of the Rialto-Colton groundwater basin, and in 2005 a proposed cleanup and abate order (CAO) was issued against plaintiffs by a regional water quality control board. After the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) issued a notice in 2007 that it intended to hold an evidentiary hearing on the proposed CAO, plaintiffs filed a succession of five petitions for writs of mandate challenging various interim or interlocutory orders of the State Board. Each petition sought to halt the State Board's evidentiary hearing on the CAO and requested that the superior court decide in the first instance the issue of whether the State Board should be disqualified from taking action due to alleged improper ex parte communications and the alleged failure to maintain separate prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this matter. After examining the record, counsel filed a â€

George Vranau sued Stere Gima for malicious prosecution. Following a two-day bench trial, the superior court entered a $29,850 judgment in favor of Vranau, including a $25,000 punitive damages award. Gima appeals, and Court reverse.

Ernesto Romero, appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for murder, attempted second degree robbery (2 counts), carjacking (3 counts), and possession of a firearm by a felon (1 count). Sentenced to life in state prison without the possibility of parole, Romero claims there was trial error. He contends that (1) application to him of the felony-murder special circumstance constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and (2) the trial court erred by giving CALCRIM No. 220's definition of reasonable doubt, because that instruction prevented the jury from considering whether a lack of evidence showed there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Neither contention has merit.

Raymond Earl Taylor appeals from the order revoking probation and increasing the restitution and probation revocation fines from $200 each to $400 each. We affirm the order revoking probation because it is supported by substantial evidence. Court reduced to their original amounts.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs L.A. Event Connection, Inc., doing business as Freak Daddy Events, and Ryan Chalme against two defendants in what is essentially a defamation action. Plaintiffs appeal the summary judgment in favor of defendant The Regents of the University of California, which was granted on the basis The Regents were entitled to immunity under Government Code sections 818.8 and 822.2. We affirm the summary judgment ruling, holding that plaintiffs' forfeited the issue by filing briefs that fail to cite to the record or set forth any of the facts in support of or in opposition to the summary judgment. Plaintiffs challenge the granting of defendant Stacy Rivas's anti-SLAPP motion and motion to strike punitive damages allegations, as well as the sustaining of her demurrer without leave to amend. We reverse the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion on the ground Rivas waived the issue, but affirm the orders sustaining the demurrer and striking punitive damages allegations. Court remand the matter to the trial court to permit plaintiffs to attempt to amend the complaint as to Rivas only.

Defendant, Andy Grajeda, was convicted of six counts of criminal conduct arising from an incident in which he used an assault weapon to force his friend from a vehicle, held his friend at gunpoint for a period of time, absconded in the vehicle, crashed the vehicle, and then fled from the scene of the accident. He was convicted of false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236), assault with an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), carjacking with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)), possession of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 12280, subd. (b)), and hit and run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)). He also received two sentencing enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subsection (b), for use of a firearm in the commission of his crimes. He contends that the trial court erred by: (1) refusing to allow evidence to impeach respondent's key witness, and (2) imposing an unauthorized firearms enhancement on the criminal threats count. Respondent contends the trial court improperly failed to impose court security fees and criminal conviction assessments in its judgment. Court modify the judgment to exclude the sentencing enhancement on the criminal threats count and to impose the requested fees, and Court otherwise affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Sheila Scott (Scott) appeals judgment in favor of Best Buy Company, Inc. (Best Buy) in her action for damages for carbon monoxide poisoning arising out of the negligent installation of a clothes dryer purchased from Best Buy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that Scott could not establish causation. Court affirm.

Appellant, Dawn Arnall, as trustee of the Roland and Dawn Arnall Living Trust and special administrator of the estate of Roland Edmond Arnall, appeals from the rulings of the probate court on the safe harbor applications filed by respondent, Claude Arnall (Prob. Code, § 21320).[1] The probate court ruled that Claude's creditor's claim did not violate the no contest clauses of the Will and Trust. Court agree with the probate court and so we affirm the rulings.

Defendant Derrick Dontae Carter was convicted of attempted premeditated murder (count 1) and assault with a firearm (count 2). Allegations that both offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, as well as allegations that a principal personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (in connection with count 1) and that Carter personally used a firearm (in connection with count 2), were found true. Carter was tried jointly with Richard Eugene Isham, who was acquitted of the attempted murder count but convicted of assault with a firearm on an aiding and abetting theory, with a true finding on the gang enhancement.

In 1999, Westchester Fire Insurance Company (Westchester) and Schools Excess Liability Fund (SELF) each contributed $2.1 million to a settlement totaling $8 million. In this action, they seek to recover these sums from each other. They both failed in that effort in the trial court and both appeal. We have consolidated these appeals, case Nos. B211596 and B207008, under the latter number for briefing, oral argument and decision. We shall refer to the parties by their proper names and not as appellant or respondent.
This case has been before us in Schools Excess Liability Fund v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1275, a decision in which we reversed an order granting SELF's motion for summary judgment. The fundamental question then was the same as it is now, i.e., will SELF and Westchester each be able to recoup from the other the $2.1 million they paid in 1999.

Defendant A.B. (mother) appeals from an order following a contested six-month review hearing, finding she had been provided â€