CA Unpub Decisions

Amber A. (Mother) appeals from orders denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to renew reunification services and terminating her parental rights as to her daughters, Carla and Mariah, and her son, Angel. Court affirm, as CourtCourt conclude the trial court reasonably found (1) that Mother had not shown changed circumstances justifying further reunification services, and (2) that the beneficial relationship exception to termination ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) does not apply.

Appellant entered a plea bargain on January 26, 2009. He pled no contest, or nolo contendere, to count three (stalking) without an indicated sentence, in exchange for dismissal of the other charges and a promise of no commitment to state prison.

Antelope Valley Healthcare District (Antelope Valley) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of administrative mandamus. Antelope Valleys petition sought to set aside an administrative decision by the Director of the California Department of Health Care Services (DHS). The DHS decision had denied Antelope Valleys appeal to be reimbursed at its cost-based interim rate for emergency services Antelope Valley provided to prepaid health plan enrollees of Molina Healthcare of California (Molina). We conclude that the DHS and the trial court erroneously determined that Antelope Valley would be reimbursed for emergency services pursuant to a provision in a Medi-Cal contract between DHS and Molina pursuant to section 53855, subdivision (e), of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Instead, this dispute is governed by a regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit 22, 53698) which determined that emergency services provided by Antelope should be compensated by the applicable interim rate. Court reverse the judgment and remand the matter with directions to grant the mandamus petition.

Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund (the Fund) sued real party in interest, Onvoi Business Solutions, Inc. (Onvoi) in superior court to collect unpaid premiums the Fund claimed were owed for workers compensation insurance policies issued to Onvoi. The Funds original complaint included a cause of action for fraud. Asserting that the three-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d) barred the fraud claim, Onvoi moved for summary adjudication of that cause of action. The Fund later filed a first amended complaint (FAC) that included expanded fraud allegations. The FAC alleged Onvoi was engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to defraud the Fund by concealing information that the Fund needed to calculate the correct premium. Onvoi did not file an amended motion in response to the FAC, and it did not re-notice its original motion. In opposing Onvois motion, the Fund argued it had been mooted by the FAC.

After jury trial, Nanshon Williams was convicted in count 1 of the second degree murder of sixteen-year-old D.R. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).) Allegations that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing death ( 12022.53, subd. (d)) and that the offense was committed for the benefit of a street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) were found by the jury to be true. Williams was also convicted, in count 5, of assault with a firearm on Ramica R., D.R.'s older sister. ( 245, subd. (a)(2).) The allegation that he personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) was found by the jury to be true, as was a gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). He was sentenced to 47 years to life.
In the death of D.R., codefendant Andre Harvey was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. ( 192, subd. (a).) A gang enhancement was found by the jury to be true. Like Williams, Harvey was also convicted of assault with a firearm on Ramica R.

Appellant appeals from the trial court's judgment and order, contending that the Department of Mental Health used "underground" regulations to illegally commit him as a Sexually Violent Predator (hereafter "SVP") and his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to make a pre-trial challenge to the validity of the SVP petition. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a 1980 charge of which he was acquitted; permitting the prosecution to present evidence of the SVP treatment program at state hospitals but barring appellant from presenting evidence that those programs were flawed; and making numerous rulings which interfered with his ability to present his case and deprived him of a fair trial. Appellant further contends that the current version of the SVPA is unconstitutional because it caused him to be committed in violation of his equal protection, due process, ex post facto and double jeopardy rights. Respondent contends that the trial court's imposition of a two-year commitment was unauthorized and must be corrected to an indeterminate term. Court agree with respondent that appellant's term must be corrected to the legally mandated indeterminate term. In accordance with the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, we remand this matter for a hearing on appellant's equal protection claim. The court's judgment and order are affirmed in all other respects.

A modification decision.

On November 3, 2005, Officer William Luemmen of the Pomona Police Department was driving a marked police car when he noticed a red Pontiac Firebird in front of him. He ran the license plate and determined the owner of the Firebird had an outstanding arrest warrant. Luemmen saw the Firebird pull into a driveway at 683 Elaine Street. Defendant Gray got out of the passenger side and Justin Liddell got out of the drivers side. Gray and Liddell walked up to a house and knocked on the door. Luemmen got out of his patrol car and called out to Liddell. Gray reached into the pocket of his jacket and pulled out a clear jar which he threw into some bushes.

AppellantJames Hargrove appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459). The court sentenced appellant to prison for four years. Court affirm the judgment

Appellant claims that the trial court committed evidentiary and instructional errors, that he was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and that the trial court erred in not granting a request to view the crime scene or permitting appellant to be present denying a readback of testimony. Court affirm

While traveling in their Ford Mustang eastbound on Copper Hill Drive in Santa Clarita, approaching the intersection of Avenida Rancho Tesoro, plaintiffs Sean OConnor and his wife, Angela, were struck head-on by a pickup truck driven in the opposite direction by Lionel Martinez, who crossed over the roadway. Among other defendants, they sued SUNCAL TESORO, LLC (SUNCAL), which was the developer of the Tesoro Del Valle project, including the roadway where the accident occurred. As against SUNCAL, plaintiffs alleged in relevant part that SUNCAL designed . . . constructed and/or maintained the roadway, and was negligent in failing to design, install, or maintain: (1) a form of channelization in the roadway that would indicate the routing of a left-turn pocket at the intersection; (2) reflective devices that would indicate a left turn and/or center median or that would lead a driver to unknowingly [sic] cross-over into on-coming east-bound traffic; and (3) failing to post adequate signage (reflective and otherwise) indicating a correct route of travel for west-bound traffic including, but not limited to, notification of a left-turn pocket, center median immediately west of the intersection of Copper Hill Drive and Avenida Rancho Tesoro.

Plaintiffs and appellants Zinab Salamat, Sonny Mesbah, Mohammad Poorkarim and Marlena Linton sought to subdivide two existing residential lots into three. The South Valley Area Planning Commission (APC) denied the parcel map on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the applicable general and community plans and with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The trial court upheld the APCs decision, denying appellants petition for writ of mandate. We affirm. The APC had discretion to consider whether the proposed parcel map was consistent with a general or specific plan, and substantial evidence supported the APCs determination.

A jury convicted defendant Andy Gonzales of misdemeanor battery and assault by means of force (his fist) likely to produce great bodily injury. In this appeal, Gonzales claims he suffered prejudicial instructional error, by virtue of the trial courts refusal to instruct the jury on simple assault. Court agree.

At the time of sentencing in the instant matter, appellant had been ordered to serve a two-year prison sentence previously imposed by the Orange County Superior Court. The Ventura County Superior Court selected the Orange County case as the principal term and confirmed the two-year base term. As to count 1 (transportation of methamphetamine), the court imposed one-third the middle term, which it ordered to run consecutive to the Orange County sentence. As to count 3 (conspiracy), the court selected the low base term of two years to run concurrent to both the Orange County sentence and the sentence in count 1. The court added three years for appellant's prior conviction (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (c)) for an aggregate term of six years.
Appellant requested a certificate of probable cause which the trial court granted. She argues that the court erred by imposing a concurrent sentence rather than staying the sentence on the conspiracy count. Court conclude that execution of sentence on count 3 must be stayed pursuant to section 654.