CA Unpub Decisions

This appeal arises from a series of incidents in which appellant committed sexual offenses against two victims, V. Doe and M. Doe. A jury convicted appellant of one count of lewd and lascivious conduct upon V. Doe when she was 14 years old (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a), count one), one count of forcible rape of M. Doe (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2), count four), and one count of forcible oral copulation of M. Doe (Pen. Code, 288a, subd. (c), count five). As to count one, the jury found that appellant engaged in substantial sexual conduct with V. Doe. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion and he was denied due process and a fair trial when the court instructed the jury that it could use uncharged acts of molestation against M. Doe as evidence of his propensity to molest V. Doe; he was denied due process, a fair trial and the right to present a defense when the court instructed the jury that the prior uncharged acts of molestation involving M constituted crimes of moral turpitude the jury could consider in assessing his credibility; he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not object to the prosecutor's misconduct during closing argument; his conviction on count four should be reversed because there is no substantial evidence that the offense occurred during the time frame alleged in the information; and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because as to count four, trial counsel should have requested an instruction on the lesser related offense of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Yok Hing Law appeals the trial courts judgment finding in favor of Maria Rita Corral and Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (Ryder) (collectively referred to as defendants). The court concluded plaintiff is foreclosed from pursuing the underlying action for personal injuries because she previously signed settlement documents releasing defendants from all liability. Court agree and affirm.

In this appeal, defendant Bruce Oliver Braun appeals two judgments, one entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of three counts of lewd acts with a child, Jane Doe 1 (Pen. Code, 228, subd. (a)) (case No. SCR 490129), and one entered upon his plea of no contest to one count of committing a lewd act with a child, Jane Doe 2 (id., 288, subd. (a)) (case No. SCR 517653). Court affirm.

Defendant California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) terminated plaintiff Man-Li Huang from her position as a supervisor of the postpartum/nursery unit at its California Campus. Huang appeals from a summary judgment dismissing her complaint against CPMC and three former CPMC employees. Huang seeks to reinstate her claims for race and national origin discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12940 et seq.), retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, defamation, and unlawful business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et. seq.). court affirm the judgment.

Appellant, Antonio Plascencia Pelayo, challenges his conviction and sentence for possession of methamphetamine for sale, possession of ecstasy for sale, and evading a police officer. He challenges the validity of a search warrant for his residence, which was based primarily on information received from confidential informants and contained in a partially sealed affidavit. Pelayo also argues that Penal Code section 654 bars his punishment for possession of both methamphetamine and ecstasy for sale. Court find no error and affirm.

A modification decision.

Counsel appointed for defendant David McBurney has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. Court have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

The question presented in this case is whether an intentional act by an insured, taken in self-defense, may qualify as an accident for purposes of an insurance policy written to provide defense and indemnification for the insured. In a nonpublished opinion, court concluded the trial court erred in ruling that it cannot, and reversed summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The California Supreme Court granted respondents petition for review and subsequently transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California (2009) 47 Cal.4th 302 (Delgado). Court vacated the decision. Now, after considering supplemental briefs from the parties, Court affirm the judgment

Alfred Hall, husband of appellant Bertie Hall, died of mesothelioma caused by workplace exposure to asbestos. Appellant is suing four manufacturers of pumps and valves for Mr. Halls injuries. None of the defendants manufacture asbestos products.
The trial court gave judgment to efendants. The court found that defendants had no liability because they did not manufacture, sell or distribute the asbestos products that injured Mr. Hall, nor did they have a duty to warn about using asbestos products with their pumps and valves. The court rejected appellants theory that defendants could be liable for harmful asbestos products they neither made nor sold if they could foresee the use of such products with their equipment. Court agree, and affirm the judgment.

Jonathan Luis Miramontes challenges his conviction for one count of murder, two counts of attempted murder, and one count of carrying a loaded firearm. Court conclude that the trial court should not have given a kill zone instruction with respect to the attempted murder counts, but that the instructional error was not prejudicial. Court reject Miramontess remaining arguments and affirm.

Defendant Joshua P. Rosales timely appealed from his conviction on one count of second degree murder and one count of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm. The jury found the firearm allegations to be true and the gang allegation to be not true. The court sentenced defendant to 40 years to life. Defendant contends the court erred in improperly instructing the jury on felony murder based on an unauthorized theory, in allowing two witnesses to testify after they invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege, and in excluding evidence the victim had two prior felony convictions. Court concluded the instructional error was prejudicial and reversed. Court subsequently granted respondents petition for rehearing as that error only affected the conviction for murder. Court reverse in part and affirm in part.

This appeal is from two consolidated lawsuits concerning a house owned by Solomon and Anna Constanza and rented by Phillip and Carol Alford. After Solomon Constanza sued for unlawful detainer, the Alfords sought specific performance of an option agreement to purchase the house. The trial court denied specific performance, concluded the Alfords owed Solomon Constanza over $50,000 in unpaid rent, and found that Carol Alford owed over $70,000 in attorney fees. Court affirm the judgment but reverse the attorney fee award and remand the matter for further proceedings

Appellant Ramona Street appeals from the order modifying the amount of monthly spousal support and child support respondent Jeffery Street was required to pay her under the judgment on the issues of physical custody, visitation and support. Before this court, appellant asserts the lower court erred when it reduced her monthly spousal support without considering the Family Code section 4320 factors. With respect to child support, appellant complains the courts modification of the support order did not accurately reflect respondents exercise of visitation with his children. Finally, both appellant and respondent raise other matters on appeal concerning tax issues, visitation and attorneys fees. As we shall explain, we do not reach the merits of these other matters because they relate to issues that were not decided in the lower court, and were not part of the judgment on appeal. Furthermore, the tax issues and visitation matters raised by respondent have not been properly preserved for appeal. As for the child and spousal support issues subject to this appeal, as Court shall explain more fully below, the evidence in the record before this court does not support the courts order and thus the order does not reflect the proper exercise of the lower courts discretion. Consequently Court reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In this consolidated appeal, Daniel G. Drommerhausen III challenges a number of probate court orders entered against him and in favor of Debra D. Hutchings, as the sole successor trustee of the Drommerhausen Family Trust. The challenged orders were entered: on November 5, 2008, (surcharging Mr. Drommerhausen over $2 million); on November 13, 2008 (denying an exemption from enforcement of a money judgment regarding a brokerage account at Crowell Weedon & Company); and on December 16, 2008 (denying a homestead exemption and an exemption claim as to certain First Federal Bank accounts). Court affirm all the orders under review.