CA Unpub Decisions

jury convicted Javier Mazariegos (appellant) of the willful, deliberate, premeditated murder of Ranferic Vasquez (Vasquez). (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).)[1] The jury found appellant personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury and death. ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d).) The trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years to life for the murder and a consecutive 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d).Appellant appeals on the grounds that: (a) the trial court prejudicially erred when it admitted Vasquezs statements about the ongoing emergency on the 911 tape as excited utterances; (2) the trial court prejudicially erred when it admitted Vasquezs statements about appellants past misconduct as nonhearsay evidence; (3) the trial court erred when it found that defense counsel opened the door to evidence about appellants involvement in a prior uncharged killing and when it sustained the prosecutions objection preventing defense counsel from properly impeaching a witness with evidence of the victims violence; (4) prosecutorial misconduct denied appellant a fair trial and due process of law; (5) appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to adequately preserve contested issues for appellate review and to request proper limiting instructions; (6) the trial errors cumulatively prejudiced appellant, and (7) the administrative fee contained in the abstract of judgment was not properly imposed. Appellant also points out a typographical error on the abstract of judgment that requires correction.
Court modify the judgment with respect to the administrative fee and otherwise affirm.

Plaintiff Roberta Leighton sustained injuries when she tripped and fell in the dark in her neighbors driveway. She filed this negligence action against the property owners, alleging they failed to maintain the driveway and that she tripped and fell over [a] dis-repaired area. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff could not identify the dangerous condition on which she bases her claim. Plaintiff responded with evidence that upon visiting the site of the accident in daylight she was able to identify an eroded portion of the driveway as the cause of her fall. The trial court found plaintiffs evidence to be speculative, determined she could not identify the cause of her fall, and granted defendants motion for summary judgment. Based on our independent review, Court disagree with the trial courts assessment of plaintiffs evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

Appellants Edward Lopez (Lopez), Jose Luis Ordonez (Ordonez), and Hortencia Ordonez (all three collectively referred to as Appellants) and Respondent Brandy Laurance were adjoining residential property owners. Laurance sued Appellants for property damage allegedly caused by Appellants renovations to their property. A bench trial resulted in a $47,775 judgment in favor of Laurance and against Appellants jointly and severally. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding them liable, in admitting certain testimony, and in awarding damages. Court conclude that the trial courts findings are supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony. The trial courts award of damages is supported by substantial evidence. court accordingly affirm.

A jury convicted John Allah (appellant) of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) (count 1), possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2), and possession of ammunition ( 12316, subd. (b)(1)) (count 3). In count 1, the jury found that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death ( 12022.53, subd. (d)). In count 3, the jury found that appellant had been convicted of a felony. With respect to all three counts, the jury found appellant committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court found appellant had suffered one prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)(d)).

Court perceive no error in the trial courts ruling and affirm the judgment.

Defendant David Emmanuel appeals from his conviction after pleading no contest to possession of a dirk or dagger in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(4)) and admitting two prior prison terms and a prior felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. He was sentenced to state prison for four years eight months, comprising one year and four months for the offense, doubled under the Three Strikes law, and two consecutive one-year prior prison term enhancements. He contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress all evidence obtained by police after he was detained, because no substantial evidence supported his detention. Court disagree and affirm.

Ecolab, Inc., appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court approved settlement of a class action wage and hours dispute. The settlement followed an arbitrator's award of $50 million in overtime wages and interest to the class. Ecolab contends the settlement agreement is void because two violations of the agreement occurred: (1) The arbitrator assigned the burden of proof to Ecolab and (2) respondent class made public disclosures of the arbitration award. Court affirm.

Alejandro Pena, also known as Enriquez Pedraza and Enrique Pena Pedroza, appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). The plea followed denial of appellants motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, before the preliminary hearing. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three-years formal probation, on conditions, among others, that he spend 365 days in county jail, and complete a 52-week residential drug treatment program, for which he was to be released from jail when a bed was available

When claims were asserted against respondents as former employees of appellant County of Los Angeles (the County), they asked the County to provide a defense pursuant to Government Code section 995, a provision of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, 810 et seq.). After the County denied the request, respondents sought relief by petition for writ of mandate. The trial court directed the County to offer to provide a defense through counsel that it had engaged to defend another employee. Concluding that a conflict would result from any attempt by the County to provide joint representation to respondents and the other employee, Court reverse.

Audel Enrique Herrarte was convicted of one count of elder abuse (Penal Code, 368, subd. (b)(1)). The jury found true the special allegation that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim ( 12022.7, subd. (c)). The court sentenced appellant to the upper term of four years for elder abuse, choosing the upper term because appellant was on probation. The court added an additional consecutive sentence of five years for the enhancement.

Appellants Susan Bradford and Lavona Stanley appeal from a post-judgment order denying their motion to add a nonparty as a judgment debtor based on the theory that Dirk Winter is the alter ego of the judgment debtor, Moonstone Management Corporation. (Code Civ. Proc., 187; see e.g., NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778.) Court affirm.

Larry Moore (Moore) appeals, in propria persona, an order denying without prejudice his petition for letters of administration for the estate of his deceased mother. Court find no abuse of discretion by the probate court and affirm.

Appellant Raymond Rangel III was convicted of two counts of second degree robbery, one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and one count of first degree murder, with a robbery-murder special circumstance and enhancements for personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b)). His total sentence is 35 years four months to life in prison, without the possibility of parole. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. Appellant was notified that he could file his own brief and has done so.

Y.T. (Father) appeals from an order of the juvenile court regarding his son, S.T., by which the court terminated its jurisdiction over the child, and granted joint legal and physical custody to Father and S.W. (Mother). Father argues on appeal that the juvenile court failed to consider the childs best interests, and did not have evidence before it to support its order that Father have visits with S.T. on alternate weekends. He further argues that the courts order regarding extended summer visits for each parent was impermissibly vague. Court conclude that Father has not demonstrated any error on appeal. Court affirm the judgment.