CA Unpub Decisions

A. Superior Court Case No. BAF006416

On December 17, 2008, a felony complaint filed in Riverside Superior Court charged defendant and appellant Kameron Cody Jones (defendant) with violating Penal Code[2]sections 261 subdivision (a)(2) and 264.1, unlawful sexual intercourse by force and violence while voluntarily acting in concert with another person and by aiding and abetting (count 1); and section 422, criminal threats (count 2). The complaint specially alleged as to count 1 that defendant entered into an inhabited dwelling house with the intent to commit a violent sex offense specified in section 667.61, subdivision (c), within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivision (d)(4). At the arraignment on December 31, 2008, defendant pled not guilty.

A jury convicted Joshua Santos Zoltan of one count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Zoltan to the midterm sentence of four years in prison.

We reverse. The trial court erred by giving CALCRIM No. 301 (single witness testimony) without modifying it to address the situation in which an accomplice offers exculpatory testimony. The error was subject to the standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman) because it had the effect of altering the burden of proof, and was prejudicial under that standard.

Cesar Hugo Nevarez (defendant) filed an appeal to challenge an erroneous abstract of judgment. The abstract of judgment has been amended already and Court dismiss the appeal as moot.

William and Noah were first removed from their parents by Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) in November 2001 when Noah was born with a positive toxicology screen for methamphetamines. Over the next six years, the boys were shuttled back and forth three times between foster care and parental custody. In August 2008, in accordance with an opinion filed by this court (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220), the juvenile court denied further reunification services and set a permanent plan selection hearing, which finally began in April 2009. In the interim, the mother filed several petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, seeking the return of the boys to her custody or additional reunification services and increased visitation. One of these petitions generated an appeal and another opinion from this court (In re William B. (Sept. 29, 2009, G041546) [nonpub. opn.]).

A modification decision.

Defendant Jesse Ray Garcia pleaded no contest to one count of felony hit and run involving bodily injury (Veh. Code, 20001, subds. (a) & (b)(1)). Pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, he was placed on probation for three years, and ordered to serve 120 days in county jail. Among other fines and fees, Garcia was ordered to pay $300 in attorney fees, pursuant to Penal Code section 987.8,[1] as well as probation supervision fees not to exceed $64 per month. The trial court also imposed various probation conditions, which included prohibitions on Garcia possess[ing] or consum[ing] alcohol or illegal drugs, and possess[ing] any firearm or ammunition.

S.G., father of the child at issue here, appeals from a juvenile court restraining order prohibiting father from contacting the child and the childs mother (mother), and requiring that father stay at least 300 yards from them. Father contends that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the restraining order, that the court abused its discretion in issuing the restraining order on mothers behalf, and that the record does not support the issuance of the restraining order on the childs behalf. As court find no error or abuse of discretion, court affirm the juvenile courts order.

Keith Allen Stevenson appeals from a conviction of residential burglary. He contends the trial court erred in denying his objection to the prosecutors peremptory challenges of three Latino prospective jurors. Court affirm.

Christian Martinez and Carlos Martinez, who are not related, appeal from the judgments entered after their convictions for felony murder arising from a robbery. Court affirm.

Wayman F. Thompson appeals from a summary judgment in his action against his former employer, Leedom Security Service, Inc. (Leedom)[1]for racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Regarding Thompsons racial discrimination and retaliation claims, the trial court found that Leedom established that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Thompson and that Thompson had failed to create a triable issue whether Leedoms reasons were pretextual. The trial court also found that Thompsons evidence in support of his racial harassment claim failed to create a triable issue of material fact. Accordingly, the trial court granted Leedom summary judgment. Court affirm.

Eugenia Ringgold created a trust and subsequently modified it by interlineation to change the first successor trustee to Tracy Sheen. After Ringgolds death, Sheen[1] petitioned to be named trustee. Nathalee Evans, the second listed successor trustee, sought a declaration that Sheens petition violated the trusts no contest petition. Evans has appealed a variety of rulings in the action, including the trial courts ultimate determination that the trust modification was valid and its confirmation of Sheen as trustee. During the course of the litigation, Sheens counsel was disqualified, and the attorneys appeal the disqualification order and the sanctions imposed against some of them. We dismiss the appeal in No. B196909; reverse one sanctions award in No. B202637; and otherwise affirm.

A jury convicted Filiberto Carillo of first degree murder, and found true the allegations that he personally used a firearm and committed the offense for the benefit of a gang. Carillo appeals, arguing that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to represent himself; failed to order disclosure of information regarding a prosecution witness; refused to admit evidence of third party culpability; and allowed a gang expert to testify regarding a tattoo on the back of Carillos head. court affirm.

Plaintiff Advanced Choices, Inc. (Advanced or Advanced Choices), submitted bills to and received remittances paid through the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by defendant California Department of Health Services (the Department or DHS). Advanced Choices was not a Medi-Cal provider and was ineligible to participate in the program. When the Department discovered the facts, it demanded return of $1,454,840.10. Advanced Choices sought formal proceedings, which were held before an administrative law judge of the Departments Office of Administrative Hearings and Appeals (OAHA). The OAHA issued a tentative ruling, which the Department adopted, affirming the Departments action. Advanced Choices then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court; the court denied the petition.
Advanced Choices now appeals, contending it is entitled to retain the $1,454,849.10 under several theories in equity. Court shall affirm.

The plaintiff in this case, LaCheryl Bell (plaintiff), has appealed from a stipulated judgment entered in favor of a defendant after a request for admissions (Code Civ. Proc., 2033.010 et seq., RFA)[1] served on plaintiff was deemed admitted in favor of the defendant because of plaintiffs failure to timely and properly respond to the RFA. The admissions prevented plaintiff from establishing her case at trial. Prior to entry of the judgment the trial court denied plaintiffs motion to have the deemed admissions set aside.