CA Unpub Decisions

On May 5, 2009,[1] appellant, Ismael Carranza Avila, pled not guilty to three counts of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594).[2] On May 7, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant changed his plea to guilty of two of those counts, and the court dismissed the third count. That same day, the court placed appellant on probation and imposed various terms and conditions of probation, including that appellant serve 180 days in local custody and pay victim restitution of $5,666.68. The court also awarded appellant 15 days of presentence credit, consisting of 11 days of actual time credit and 4 days of conduct credit.
On July 17, appellant filed a notice of motion to withdraw his plea â€

The juvenile court did not err in denying a hearing on the mother's petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Nor did the court err not finding the parental benefit exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) applied here. court affirm.

Ruben Campos appeals a judgment recommitting him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962.) Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Campos poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others. court affirm.

A modification decision.

Appellant Clinton Sweet, Jr., appeals from an order denying his motion to recalculate his presentence custody credits. Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of petty theft with a prior. (Pen. Code, § 666.)[1] On March 25, 2009, the court sentenced him to two years in prison. As is relevant here, the court granted appellant 214 days actual credit plus 106 days conduct credit for a total of 320 days.

The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Windward Capital Management Company (Windward Capital) and S.L. Reed & Company (S.L. Reed) (collectively Windward/Reed) against Eric Christenson (Christenson) and Michael Anderson (Anderson) in the amount of $75,483 for breach of contract and fraud. The trial court awarded $37,500 in punitive damages against Christenson and the same amount against Anderson. Also, it sanctioned Christenson and Anderson for Windward/Reed's cost of proving facts Christenson and Anderson failed to admit. Christenson and Anderson appeal on the grounds that the finding of fraud is barred by claim preclusion, issue preclusion and the litigation privilege; absent fraud, there is no basis for an award of punitive damages; the trial court erred when it issued $177,030.76 in cost of proof sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420;[1] and the judgment should be modified to provide that $75,483 is due under a prior judgment and that Windward/Reed is entitled to nothing more. We affirm the compensatory award of $75,483 based on breach of contract. However, we reverse the two punitive damages awards because Windward/Reed's fraud claim was barred by the litigation privilege. Only one of seven requests for admissions can be considered material to this action, so we conclude that the trial court erred when it awarded cost of proof sanctions as to six of those requests. As a result, Court remand the matter to the trial court for a recalculation of sanctions due to Windward/Reed.

Appellant Wayne Taylor III appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of count 1, second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),[1] count 2, arson (§ 451, subd. (d)) and count 3, assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). As to count 3, the jury found true the allegation that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)
The trial court sentenced appellant as follows: as to count 1, 15 years to life; as to count 2, eight months (one-third midterm of two years) consecutive to count 1; as to count 3, four years plus three years for the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement to run consecutive to counts 1 and 2.
Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Plaintiff Patrick Braden appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd. (ANA) entered after the trial court sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Jonathan O. (the minor) appeals from an order of the juvenile court committing him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), for a 14-year theoretical maximum period of confinement based on firearm-related offenses found true in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition.[1] The minor contends the juvenile court abused its discretion because (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding of probable benefit from the commitment to the DJJ, and (2) the juvenile court did not sufficiently consider and unreasonably rejected an alternative placement. Court affirm.

Court affirm an order imposing discovery sanctions against a party defendant in the amount of $42,978.43.

A modification decision.

Appellant Anthony Chandler appeals his conviction for one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code,[1] § 246) with a true finding that he committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, and with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(4)(B)). On appeal, Chandler argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's true finding on the gang enhancement allegation. He also asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to bifurcate trial of the gang enhancement from trial of the underlying charge. Court affirm.