CA Unpub Decisions

This is an action between neighboring real property owners. Plaintiffs, Janice Sharp and Dane Hoiberg, appeal from two postjudgment orders. The first order awarded $184,510 in attorney fees and $14,109 in costs to Paul Anderson and Elizabeth Anderson (the Andersons). The second order awarded $295,547 in attorney fees to the Alta San Rafael Association, Marilyn Buchanan, Charles Malouf, Ann Longyear and John Craig (collectively, the association). The attorney fees were awarded under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, specifically Civil Code section 1354, subdivision (c). Court affirm the orders.

In Logix Development Corporation v. Faherty (Nov. 14, 2007, B178872 [nonpub. opn.]) (hereafter Logix I), Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded a judgment in excess of $22 million, which Court reduced to $8,388,385 in favor of Logix Development Corporation, D. Keith and Anne Howington (collectively respondents in Logix I and in this appeal), and against appellant J. Roger Faherty. Under our decision in Logix I, Logix Development Corporation (Logix) recovered $5,536,102 and the Howingtons recovery was $2,852,483, totaling $8,388,385. Court ordered that a settlement of $8,032,500 received by respondents be credited against the judgment; this reduces the judgment to $356,085. We remanded with directions for a new trial on the issue whether a channel named Spice Hot was an explicit channel; only if Spice Hot was explicit respondents could recover $356,085. In other words, if the Spice Hot channel was not explicit, respondents will recover nothing.

Court affirm a judgment on reserved issues entered by the family law court.

The jury found defendant and appellant Carlos Calderon guilty of the first degree murder of Emilio Perez, in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). The jury found true the firearm allegations, including that defendant personally and intentionally fired the gun that caused the victims death ( 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)), and that the murder was committed to benefit a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)). Defendant was also convicted of the attempted murder of Mario Rendon ( 664, 187, subd. (a)) with the additional findings that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated ( 664, subd. (a)), that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm ( 12022.53, subds. (c) & (d)), and did so to benefit a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)). The trial court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life in state prison for the first degree murder, consecutive to a term of 25 years to life for the personal firearm use enhancement. For the attempted murder, defendant received a life term under section 664, subdivision (a), plus 20 years for the firearm enhancement.

Auciello contends that (1) the trial court erred in finding the continuing violation doctrine inapplicable to this case; (2) the court erred in precluding Auciello from presenting the totality of circumstances in which his retaliation case arose; (3) the court erred in providing jury instructions that pre-ordained a defense verdict; and (4) the court erred in excluding key evidence of protected activity. Auciello argues that all errors were prejudicial and require reversal.

Calvin Earl Callier, also known as Rocky Hopkins and Julian Ellis, appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions in a court trial of false imprisonment (Pen. Code, 236, count 2) and assault with a semiautomatic firearm ( 245, subd. (b), count 5). In connection with count 5, the trial court found to be true the allegations that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a) and used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 13 years. Defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support (1) the finding of a semiautomatic weapon in count 5, and (2) his conviction of false imprisonment in count 2.
Court affirm.

2006, Taylor M. admitted the allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition that he committed arson of the property of another, as well as vandalism causing damage in excess of $400. (Pen. Code, 451, subd. (d); 594, subd. (b)(1).) In 2006, the juvenile court placed appellant in a deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) program. He now appeals from the court's subsequent order revoking his DEJ placement, declaring him to be a ward of the court, and placing him on probation. Appellant contends that the court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by failing to reduce his monthly restitution to an amount that he could afford, and by revoking his DEJ placement for failing to make restitution payments.

This case arises out of a failed video game development arrangement pursuant to which defendant, California 7 Studios, Inc., was developing a game for plaintiff, Scratch DJ Game. Defendant appeals from a May 12, 2009 preliminary injunction. The trial court ordered defendant to turn over to plaintiff all of its work product including source code. The work product contained defendants pre-existing tools and technology. Court affirm.

Sam Nang Pak appeals a judgment following conviction of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 459, 460.)
At trial, the prosecutor presented evidence that Pak and another man jumped a gate and entered the backyard of the Dich residence at 11311 Frankmont Street in El Monte. A neighbor saw the men and telephoned for police assistance. Police Officer Dean Menart arrived and saw Pak walk through the backyard gate toward the street, carrying an exterminator's sprayer. Pak also had gloves in his pocket. When questioned, he stated that he was looking for a friend. After Dich returned to his home, he found two window screens removed from the back of his house and a screwdriver-like item in the backyard.
The jury convicted Pak of first degree residential burglary. ( 459, 460.) The trial court sentenced him to two years in prison and awarded him 210 days of presentence custody credit. The court also imposed a $200 restitution fine and a $200 parole revocation restitution fine in addition to other fines and fees. ( 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.)
court appointed counsel to represent Pak in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues.

Appellant Charles Wykle appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated plea of no contest to one count of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. Appellant admitted that he had previously suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and that he had suffered four prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b). In exchange, appellant was sentenced to a stipulated term of 30 years in state prison consisting of: 10 years on the robbery count (the upper term of five years, doubled), plus five years each for four prior convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
Court appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.

Appellants conviction was based upon the following facts taken from the evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing:
In the evening of November 7, 2008, appellant entered the Barclay Hotel near 4th and Main Streets, in Los Angeles. Seeming to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he was asked by the clerk to leave. Appellant responded by spitting on the manager.
After leaving the hotel, appellant jumped up, grabbed a tree branch of one of the hotel trees, hung on it and broke it. He then hung from another branch, which also broke. Appellant then ran away, running by the front door to the hotel and saying, Ha, Ha. I broke your trees. Appellant was then chased and apprehended by a safety officer. Both the hotel clerk and another witness made an identification of appellant. However, neither of them selected appellant in a live lineup held in late January 2009.

Defendant, Michael Matias Evans, appeals from his conviction after a jury trial for felony driving under the influence and with a .08 percent blood alcohol level and causing injury. (Veh. Code, 23153, subds. (a)-(b).) The jury further found as to each count defendants blood alcohol content was .20 percent and more, by weight (Veh. Code, 23578, 23538, subd. (b)(2)) and he personally inflicted great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a).) Defendant was sentenced to 4 years, 4 months in state prison. The trial court ordered defendant to pay: a $390 fine (Veh. Code, 23554) plus penalty assessment; a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)); a $200 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.45); a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, 1465.8); and a $50 lab fee. Defendant received credit for 2 days in presentence custody. Court reverse in part, modify in part, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Court hold that defendant Jessica Salazar has carried her burden to demonstrate that she is entitled to the appointment of an eyewitness expert at the expense of Los Angeles County.

Court hold that, because the defendant has demonstrated that he is indigent, he is entitled to appointment of ancillary experts, who are on the Los Angeles County Superior Court list of experts, to be paid by Los Angeles County.