CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff sued for head injuries she sustained in a boating accident. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant boat owner, after permitting him to submit expert evidence and to fundamentally alter his separate statement of facts in his reply papers. Plaintiff was deprived of an opportunity to address and dispute the new evidence and new contentions, in violation of her right to due process. Court reverse the judgment.

This appeal involves a dispute between two insurance companies that insured the same parties for the same liability. One of the insurers, Associated Indemnity Corporation (Associated), provided coverage for the insured parties and ultimately paid the $640,000 settlement. The other insurance company, Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless), did not provide coverage or make any payment.

Mark Maciel (the objector), David Maciel (David) and James Maciel, Sr. (James, Sr.) were the sons of the decedent, Joseph D. Maciel. The objector appeals after the probate court cancelled a quitclaim deed. The quitclaim deed transferred title in the decedent's home to the objector. The probate court transferred the home to the decedent's personal representatives. The objector also appeals from the denial of his new trial motion. Court affirm.

Appeal is taken from a judgment following remand. Appellant Clayton Baker contends that he is entitled to recover additional contractual attorney fees. The trial court allowed Baker to recover fees from the corporation that is a party to the contract, but denied Clayton any recovery from the corporation's president. Court affirm.

William J. Herrera appeals from the judgment entered following the revocation of his probation. Appellant was placed on probation following his no contest plea to one count of possession of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle, in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(1). When his probation subsequently was revoked, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years in state prison and ordered him to have no contact with Bonita Laverty. Appellant contends that the trial court lacked authority to impose the no-contact order and that the order infringes on his constitutional right to freedom of association. We agree that the trial court lacked authority to impose the no-contact order and therefore strike it.
Appellant further contends that he is entitled to additional presentence custody credits based on the amendment to Penal Code section 4019, and that, notwithstanding the amendment, the trial court's calculation of custody credit is incorrect. Although we do not agree that the amendment to Penal Code section 4019 applies retroactively to appellant's case, Court agree that the trial court's calculation of custody credits is unclear and therefore remand for the court to clarify the calculation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

In 1979, respondent John Myles was convicted of first degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with a firearm enhancement. He was sentenced to a prison term of 27 years to life. In August 2006, a panel of the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) found him suitable for parole. In January 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reversed the Board's decision, concluding Myles's release would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the superior court, Myles challenged the Governor's decision on the ground it was not supported by â€

Jesse Hegler appeals, in pro. per., from the trial court's order of dismissal entered after it sustained without leave to amend a demurrer to appellant's first amended complaint. Court affirm.

Appellants, the estate of Robert Reaser, his wife and children challenge the trial court's order dismissing, on the grounds of forum non conveniens, the wrongful death/survival complaint alleging Mr. Reaser was exposed to products containing asbestos manufactured by almost four dozen respondents. The trial court concluded that Florida was the appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter and dismissed the California action. As Court shall explain, while we conclude that the lower court did not err in granting the forum non conveniens motion based on the record then before it, the court should have stayed the action rather than dismissing it. Accordingly, Court reverse.

Appellant Delante Banks was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years to life in state prison.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury with voluntary manslaughter instructions and further contending that the prosecutor committed misconduct in arguing about intoxication. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

A modification decision.

A jury found defendant and appellant Harry Avakyan guilty of leaving the scene of an accident and of multiple counts of felony drunk driving. On appeal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for felony drunk driving; that he could not be convicted of multiple counts of felony drunk driving; that he is entitled to additional custody credits under Penal Code section 4019; and that an enhancement alleged under Vehicle Code section 23558 and found true by the jury must be stricken. We agree that defendant cannot be convicted of multiple counts of felony drunk driving; that the enhancement must be stricken; and that there is an error in the award of custody credits. Court therefore reverse the judgment in part and affirm it in part.

A jury found defendants and appellants Nanine Nanez and Henry Solomon guilty of, among other things, multiple counts of robbery and assault. The jury also found that the felonies were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members, under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). Defendants now contend that there was insufficient evidence to establish the specific intent prong of the gang enhancement. They also raise various sentencing issues. Court agree that remand is necessary to address errors in defendants' sentences, but Court otherwise affirm the judgment.

Andrew Cummings appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on three narcotics counts. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the police officer from the City of Torrance lacked jurisdiction to conduct a traffic stop in the City of Long Beach. Court affirm.

After Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco) denied Connie Stevens Fisher's claim for water damage to her Wyoming home, Stevens sued for breach of insurance contract. The trial court granted Safeco's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in its favor. Court affirm.