CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Manuel Mares of first degree murder and related lesser offenses, and found that he personally and intentionally used a firearm. (Pen. Code, 187, 12022.7, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court sentenced him to 53 years to life. He raises two issues regarding the competency of the child eyewitness to the shooting, and also claims the witnesss father tampered with her testimony. Finally, he argues the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of his Internet searches for firearm silencers. Court disagree with defendants contentions and affirm.

Attorneys Mark Thierman and H. Tim Hoffman (collectively, Thierman) appeal from a judgment (1) confirming a corrected arbitration award allocating class action attorney fees between Thierman and attorney John Kelson, and (2) awarding attorney fees to Kelson as the prevailing party in the litigation over fees. Court modify the judgment to strike the award of prevailing party fees and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

N.M. appeals contending the juvenile court erred when it denied his request to be declared a presumed father. Court conclude the trial court applied the applicable statutes correctly and will affirm.

Defendant Matthew David Phillips pleaded no contest to six felony counts arising from his videotaping and photographing of teenagers engaged in sexual activity.
The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms in state prison on three of the counts and granted probation on the other three counts. The People appealed and filed a petition for writ of mandate, contending that the hybrid sentence of probation and imprisonment was unlawful. Court agree, and will grant a writ of mandate commanding the trial court to vacate its sentence on all counts and resentence defendant in accordance with law.

Anthony Covarrubias appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187; counts 1 & 2) with a multiple-murder special-circumstance finding (Pen. Code, 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), and with personal and intentional discharge of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (c)), personal and intentional discharge of a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury and death (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (d)), and with each offense committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for two terms of life without the possibility of parole, plus 50 years to life. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted appellant Larry Alexander of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5). The trial court found two alleged prior strikes to be true. (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) The court struck one, and sentenced defendant to a total term of eight years in prison, consisting of the midterm of four years, doubled. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending: (1) the trial court erred in denying his Pitchess motion without conducting an in camera inspection of the relevant personnel records of two of the four police officers involved in stopping and arresting him; (2) this court must review the personnel records of the two police officers regarding whom the court granted the Pitchess motion, to determine if any records were improperly withheld from appellants trial counsel; (3) the trial court erred by excluding testimony from appellant and his girlfriend that the police used excessive force when they arrested him, and from a witness who had previously accused one of the officers of using excessive force during an arrest; and, (4) the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence that the area in which appellant was detained was known for narcotics sales by street gangs, thus implying that appellant was a gang member.

The jury found defendants Jonathan Juarez and David Armendariz guilty of the first degree murder of David Calixtro. (Pen. Code, 189, subd. (a).)[1] The jury further found that Juarez killed Calixtro by personally and intentionally discharging a handgun ( 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)), and that both defendants committed the offense to benefit a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(c)). As to Armendariz, the jury found not true the special allegations concerning firearm use by a principal. In a separate proceeding, the trial court found the recidivist allegations trueJuarez suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction under the three strikes law ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a prior conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a); Armendariz suffered two prior strike convictions and two section 667, subdivision (a) prior convictions. Juarez received a sentence of 80 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life doubled under the three strikes law, plus 25 years to life for the firearm use finding and an additional five years for the prior conviction. Armendariz received a sentence of 85 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life tripled under the three strikes law, plus 10 years for the two prior convictions.

Defendant, Lamar Darell Elzy, appeals from his conviction for attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a)) and the findings that he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d), (e)(1)) and was previously convicted of two serious felonies. ( 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Defendant argues the trial court improperly refused to appoint an investigator and deprived him of his right to counsel at the sentencing hearing. The Attorney General argues defendants sentence should be corrected. Court modify the sentence imposed and otherwise affirm the judgment with modifications.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to compel arbitration of claims brought by plaintiff, Craig Borison, arising out of his employment with defendant, Gibbs, Giden, Lochner, Turner & Senet, a limited liability partnership, which is a law firm. Plaintiff sued the firm and defendant, William Lochner, an individual, for wrongful termination and other related claims. Defendants moved to compel arbitration of the claims. The trial court refused to compel arbitration concluding that the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under standards set forth in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 113-127 and its progeny. Court affirm.

Jose P. appeals from the judgment of May 7, 2009, declaring I.P., born in February 2009, a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. He contends he was not served with Judicial Council form JV-505 (Statement Regarding Parentage), substantial evidence does not support the sustained allegations of the petition, and denial of reunification services was an abuse of discretion. Jose forfeited the contention that he was not served with form JV-505 by failing to object in the trial court. Substantial evidence supports the allegations, and the dependency courts denial of reunification services was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

This dispute about expanding a commercial building within a shopping center calls upon us to construe a declaration of restrictions and grant of easements (the Declaration), recorded by the parties predecessors in interest to create covenants running with the land for the common benefit of the adjoining landowners whose separate parcels make up the shopping center.
Plaintiff Sierra Oaks Madison Limited Partnership appeals from a judgment of nonsuit in favor of defendants Ralphs Grocery Company (Ralphs) and Ralphss successors in interest -- Red Mountain Retail Group, Inc., Casa Blanco LLC, and 4080 Douglas Blvd. GB, LLC (collectively, Red Mountain). The trial court granted nonsuit following its decision in a bifurcated bench trial that (1) the Declaration expressly prohibits the proposed expansion, and (2) defendants failure to assert the dispositive clauses as a defense until they filed trial briefs did not preclude the court from considering the dispositive clauses. Plaintiff contends (1) the trial court erred in concluding the Declaration was not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation urged by plaintiff and initially unquestioned by defendants, and (2) rules governing judicial admissions and discovery responses preclude defendants from changing their position. Court shall affirm the judgment

Plaintiff Sierra Oaks Madison Limited Partnership appeals from a judgment of nonsuit in favor of defendants Ralphs Grocery Company (Ralphs) and Ralphss successors in interest -- Red Mountain Retail Group, Inc., Casa Blanco LLC, and 4080 Douglas Blvd. GB, LLC (collectively, Red Mountain). The trial court granted nonsuit following its decision in a bifurcated bench trial that (1) the Declaration expressly prohibits the proposed expansion, and (2) defendants failure to assert the dispositive clauses as a defense until they filed trial briefs did not preclude the court from considering the dispositive clauses. Plaintiff contends (1) the trial court erred in concluding the Declaration was not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation urged by plaintiff and initially unquestioned by defendants, and (2) rules governing judicial admissions and discovery responses preclude defendants from changing their position.Court shall affirm the judgment.

After denying a motion to suppress evidence at the preliminary hearing, the magistrate held defendant Joseph Ray Messer to answer on felony charges. A hearing on an anticipated motion to dismiss the information (Pen. Code, 995) was scheduled, but before such hearing, defendant changed his plea.

A jury convicted Adam Limbrick and R'mon Howard Anderson of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)), attempted premeditated murder ( 664/187, subd. (a)), and two counts of robbery ( 211). With respect to each of these counts, the jury found Limbrick personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally discharged a firearm ( 12022.53, subds. (c), (d)), and Anderson was vicariously armed with a firearm ( 12022, subd. (a) (1)). Limbrick also was convicted of shooting at an inhabited dwelling ( 246). As to both Limbrick and Anderson, the jury found to be true the special circumstance allegation the murder was committed in the commission of robbery ( 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that Anderson had a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a prior serious/violent or strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)).