CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Quinton Duran (Duran) appeals his convictions for possession, possession for sale, and transportation of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a), 11351, 11352, subd. (a),) and giving false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, 148.9, subd. (a)). Durans sole contention on appeal is that the trial court violated his constitutional right to counsel by denying his motion to substitute a privately retained attorney for his appointed counsel. court conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely, and affirm.

Appellant Bruce Campbell (Campbell) appeals his conviction for one count of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code,[1] 459). He contends that the trial courts admission of evidence relating to an eyewitnesss pretrial and trial identifications denied him due process of law because the pretrial photographic lineup was unduly suggestive and impermissibly tainted the subsequent in-court identification. Campbell also argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial by insufficiently challenging the eyewitness identification evidence. court affirm the conviction.

Joel Schieffer appeals the judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate to compel the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to set aside the suspension of his drivers license. (Veh. Code, 13353.2, subd. (a).)[1] He contends that he was unlawfully detained and arrested and, therefore, breath test evidence of his intoxication was erroneously admitted. Court affirm.

This case involves the modification of spousal and child support orders sought by the payor spouse (the husband). The question is whether the trial court properly imputed income of $2,348 per month to the payee spouse (the wife), reducing monthly spousal support from $1,148 to zero and reducing monthly child support by $456 per month. Based on the wifes income and expense declaration (made under penalty of perjury) that she had monthly expenses of $4,734 and that none of her expenses was paid by others, and relying on In re Marriage of Calcaterra & Badakhsh (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 28 (Calcaterra), the court imputed monthly income of $2,348 to the wife, observing that [i]f she spends it, shes got it.

Sean Montgomery appeals from a September 30, 2008, order in which the trial court vacated its June 13, 2008, order relinquishing jurisdiction over custody and visitation issues to a court in Oklahoma. Court reverse because the order was entered after the period of time permitted to vacate the order had expired.

A jury convicted defendants Jevary Whitman and Kapree Maurice Brown of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1))[1] and found true the allegation that they personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the crime ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). As to defendant Whitman alone, the jury found true the allegation that he committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). The jury also convicted defendant Whitman alone of second degree robbery ( 211) and kidnapping ( 207, subd. (a)), and found gang allegations in those counts to be true.

Plaintiff Norcal Mutual Insurance Company (Norcal) appeals from an order of dismissal entered following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, CNA Reinsurance Company Limited, and Terra Nova Insurance Company, Limited (respondents). Respondents reinsured Norcal for any liability Norcal might incur under a managed health care professional liability policy issued by Norcal for the initial policy period of August 1999 through August 2000 (the 1999/2000 policy). After respondents denied Norcals claim for reinsurance, Norcal sued respondents for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and negligence. In granting summary judgment, the trial court reasoned that Norcals claim for reinsurance was not based on liability arising under the 1999/2000 policy, because the claim by Norcals insured that created the Norcals liability fell outside the period of the 1999/2000 insurance policy. Norcal contends that the policy period was extended by operation of law until June 2001 because its insured was not provided with notice of nonrenewal of the 1999/2000 policy, as required by Insurance Code section 678.1. Therefore, the claim made by the insured in February 2001 fell within the policy period, and respondents were obligated under the reinsurance contract to indemnify Norcal.

In this breach of contract action, the jury returned a verdict for defendants Marcello Pizarro and Pizarro Design Studio. Plaintiff 2016 Riverside Drive, Inc. has appealed from the judgment based on claims of evidentiary error. Court reject plaintiffs contentions and affirm.

Appellant Kelly Jerome Daniels (Daniels) appeals his convictions for assault on a peace officer (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (c)), battery with injury on a peace officer ( 243, subd. (c)(2)), and misdemeanor vandalism ( 594, subd. (a)). On appeal, Daniels challenges the jurys finding that he committed the crimes 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)(1)). Court conclude that substantial evidence supported the jurys true findings on the gang enhancement allegations, and accordingly, affirm.

Defendant Richard Calanche Rodarte was charged by second amended information with one count of assault with a firearm (count one, Pen. Code 245, subd. (a)(2))[1] and one count of attempted robbery (count four, 664 and 211) with respect to victim Rosendo Bautista Nicasio (Bautista).[2] He was also charged with one count of assault with a firearm (count three) and one count of attempted robbery (count two) with respect to a second victim, Sergio Rodriguez. The information further alleged that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which caused great bodily injury to Bautista within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d); personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c); personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b); and suffered a prior conviction (a 2002 violation of section 273.5, subdivision (a), infliction of corporal punishment on a spouse) within the meaning of section 667.5.

Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE) denied insurance coverage to Zary Abdelhamid for the fire that burned her house down, claiming she had (1) failed to produce requested documentation, (2) failed to answer material questions when she was examined under oath, (3) failed to submit a completed proof of loss with necessary documentation, and (4) failed to cooperate in the processing of her claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for FIE on Abdelhamids complaint alleging FIEs breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith denial of claim, and unfair business practices. Court affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, defendant Hermet Doralle Tryial entered a plea of no contest to one count of possession of firearms by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and the trial court placed defendant on three years probation subject to several conditions. On appeal, defendant asserts that three of these conditions are unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad. Court agree and modify the conditions accordingly.

The Medical Board of California (Board) is required under the Administrative Procedures Act (Gov. Code, 11340 et seq.; APA) to allow oral or written argument when it rejects a decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) and decides a case on its own, even where the case is remanded to the Board for redetermination of the penalty following judicial review on a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. (Ventimiglia v. Board of Behavioral Sciences (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 296, 313-314.) The Board initially revoked petitioner Jehan Zeb Mirs license upon the adoption of the findings of an ALJ. The superior court granted a petition to set aside the revocation on the ground that some of the Boards findings could not be sustained. It remanded the matter to the Board stating that it could not determine whether the Board would have applied the same penalty without the disapproved findings.

J.M. (J.) appeals from an order denying her request to have her former foster child returned to her home. Court reject her contentions of error and affirm the trial court's order.