CA Unpub Decisions

A.G. (appellant), born in October 1991, appeals a juvenile court dispositional order committing him to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) after he admitted one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)) and one count of robbery (Pen. Code, 212.5, subd. (c)). He contends the probation department failed to prepare a social study prior to the dispositional hearing, and the court abused its discretion in committing him to the DJJ. Court reject the contentions and affirm.

Defendant J.R. is the father of seventeen-year-old R.R., a dependent child of the juvenile court. He appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders of the juvenile court. Father contends that R.R. was erroneously allowed to testify outside of his presence at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing; that the jurisdictional and dispositional findings are not supported by substantial evidence; and that the juvenile court erroneously delegated its duty to determine visitation. Court reject Fathers contentions and affirm.

Cynthia Beck appeals a judgment in favor of the Goldsteins in their action arising out of a boundary dispute. The parties initially settled their dispute at mediation, but immediately had difficulties implementing the mediation agreement. After several failed attempts to resolve those difficulties, the parties tried the case; the jury awarded the Goldsteins $6 million in compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, Beck contends the mediation settlement agreement is unenforceable and she is not liable for breach; the Goldsteins nuisance claims fail because they are premised on that breach; and even if we affirm her liability, the damage awards must be reversed.

Respondent and appellant Mark A. Leuzinger (Mark)[1]appeals a judgment on reserved issues entered by the trial court in marital dissolution proceedings between Mark and his former wife, Gail Stark-Leuzinger (Gail). On appeal, Mark argues that the trial court failed to divide the parties community property furnishings and appliances, mischaracterized certain other assets and liabilities, and failed to divide the parties community property estate equally, as required by Family Code section 2550.[2] We conclude that Marks contention that the trial court failed to divide the furnishings and appliances has merit, but that Marks remedy is a motion or order to show cause in the trial court pursuant to section 2556. Mark forfeited his other contentions by failing to follow the applicable rules of appellate procedure. Furthermore, even if we were to address those contentions, Mark has failed to demonstrate reversible error. Court deny Gails motion for sanctions.

Cory Michael Martin vandalized a Lotus sports car on display at a car dealership. He pled no contest to a charge of felony vandalism (Pen. Code,[1] 594, subd. (b)(1)) and was granted probation. At the probation hearing, it was established that the victim had lost $27,370.05 on the sale of the Lotus as a direct result of the vandalism. The People also submitted evidence that as the direct and sole result of the victim's claim for and recovery of those losses under its liability insurance policy, its annual insurance premium had increased by $8,200. As a term and condition of Martin's probation, he agreed to pay both amounts as victim restitution. He now appeals, contending that the court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay the victim's increased insurance premium. In light of the trial court's broad discretion to award victim restitution as a condition of probation (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663, fn. 7), Court affirm.

A jury convicted Roger Martinez of first degree murder and use of a firearm causing great bodily injury or death, for the benefit of or at the direction of a criminal street gang. Martinez was sentenced to 120 years to life in prison. Martinez appeals, arguing that remarks during closing argument constituted prosecutorial misconduct. Court affirm.

In this appeal, Kevin Garcia challenges his conviction of possession for sale of cocaine base and the jurys finding of a gang enhancement. We independently review the denial of Garcias request for pretrial discovery of a police officers personnel file and find no abuse of discretion. We reject Garcias challenges to the gang enhancement, including his arguments that (1) the court should have bifurcated the trial on the enhancement; (2) the gang expert offered improper opinion testimony regarding Garcias and his associates gang membership; and (3) the gang enhancement was not supported by substantial evidence. We also reject Garcias claims that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his uncharged misconduct and that his trial counsel rendered the ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

American Housing Construction, Inc. appeals from judgment against it after the trial court sustained respondents demurrer to its first amended complaint without leave to amend. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

Reza Naghipour appeals the verdict in favor of Gina Hattenbach on two grounds: the trial court did not give a jury instruction that was not requested and it did not admit evidence that was not offered. Court affirm the judgment and impose sanctions against Naghipour for bringing a frivolous appeal.

Plaintiffs Yesenia Cornejo, Ayesha Balasoori, Edwin Consequera, Dora Cornejo, Maria Flores, Carmelina Lopez, Gloria Navarrete, Maria Rodriquez, Jesus Sanchez and Otto Solis appeal from an order granting the anti-SLAPP motion, that is, the motion to strike plaintiffs complaint, brought by defendant Charles Clark, as Trustee of the Clark Trust, under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

Appellant David Davood appeals from a judgment entered following a plea of guilty to count 2, stalking (Pen. Code, 646.9, subd. (b)).[1] Appellant was charged by information with count 1, stalking ( 646.9, subd. (a)); count 2, stalking ( 646.9, subd. (b)); and count 3, making criminal threats ( 422). The trial court granted appellants section 995 motion as to count 1. Appellant then pleaded guilty to counts 2 and 3 and admitted one serious prior felony conviction allegation pursuant to sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivision (b) through (i) (the Three Strikes Law). Pursuant to a plea disposition, the trial court dismissed count 3 and sentenced appellant on count 2, to the term of four years in state prison.

P.M. (Father), the father of two-year-old V.B., appeals from the juvenile courts orders at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, declaring V.B. and his half-sibling, F.R., dependent children of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (g), and (j),[1]and removing the children from parental custody pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c). Father contends that the juvenile courts decision to remove V.B. from the custody of his parents was not supported by sufficient evidence. Court affirm.

A jury found defendant and appellant Cesar Saldivar guilty of possessing ecstacy for sale. On appeal, he claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsels failure to object to evidence showing that he possessed a small amount of marijuana when he was arrested and that his cell phone had a picture of marijuana in its memory. According to defendant, the marijuana evidence was irrelevant to the charged crime of possessing ecstacy for sale and its introduction into evidence prejudiced the jury against him. Court hold that the record is insufficient to enable us to determine the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which claim is ordinarily and more appropriately raised in a petition for writ of mandate. Court therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.

Plaintiffs Charles William West, his wife Alane Marie West, and their two related business interests brought an action against the County of Los Angeles (the County), District Attorney Steve N. Cooley, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) David Janssen, and others,[1]seeking damages for violation of their civil rights under Civil Code section 52.1 and section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code (section 1983), for breach of bailment, and seeking an injunction. The allegations at issue all stem from injuries plaintiffs alleged they suffered when the District Attorneys Office searched and seized plaintiffs property pursuant to a warrant, and retained and damaged some of that property. All defendants moved for summary adjudication of the first four causes of action. The County and District Attorney (defendants) raised statutory immunity from liability as grounds. The remaining four defendants, Janssen, Harper, McCauley, and Henry (herein referred to as the administrative defendants or, together with defendants, as all defendants), argued that after the trial court sustained their demurrer to the first amended complaint with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that named Janssen but made no allegations that any of the administrative defendants committed the acts alleged in the first four causes of action. The trial court denied the summary adjudication motion, and all defendants petitioned this court for writ of mandate. We issued an order to show cause. Court now conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendants summary adjudication motion. Accordingly, Court grant the petition and direct the trial court to vacate its orders.