CA Unpub Decisions

Desmond Deon Davis appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to count 1 second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) with an admission that he personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.5, subd. (a)), and following his plea of no contest to count 2 attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a)).The court sentenced appellant to prison for 15 years to life on count 1 plus three years for the firearm enhancement with, as to count 2, a concurrent term of life with the possibility of parole. Court modify the judgment and, as modified, affirm it with directions.

These consolidated appeals are from orders in postjudgment supplemental proceedings determining the priority of liens against $250,000 owed to an insolvent corporation, Ncom, Inc. (Ncom). Appellant, Continental Recovery Group, LLC (CRG), initiated the proceedings as assignee of two superior court default judgments against Ncom. Respondent Saied Kashani (Kashani), an attorney for Ncom, intervened in the proceedings to assert an attorneys lien against the $250,000. In two materially identical orders rendered in each of the two cases in which CRG is the assignee judgment creditor the trial court held that Kashanis lien was valid and superior to CRGs, and that Kashani was entitled to payment. The court further declined to make its orders without prejudice to proceedings in a creditors suit that CRG filed just before the court rendered its decision (CRGs action).

Aside from this, the trial court made specific findings addressing and discounting the claims of appellant and his mother for any entitlement to continued use of the disputed property through an oral easement, license or equitable easement. The trial court amended its initial ruling to include, in its statement of decision, an express declaration that as owners of legal title to the disputed property, [respondents] are the owners of all beneficial title to same. By expressly finding respondents to have beneficial, as well as legal, title to the disputed property, the trial court rejected any claim by appellant and Mrs. Combs for an equitable easement or license to use such property.

Johnny S. Ringgold appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), following the denial of his suppression motion (Pen. Code, 1538.5). The court sentenced appellant to prison for 16 months. Court reverse the judgment and remand with directions.

Defendant and appellant Jeffrey Borer surreptitiously and illegally videotaped the noted entertainer Michael Jackson and his two criminal defense lawyers, plaintiffs and respondents Mark Geragos and E. Pat Harris (plaintiffs), while Jackson and plaintiffs were flying in a chartered airplane. Borer planned to sell the videotape to a media company for a large sum of money. Before he could do so, however, plaintiffs filed suit against Borer and obtained an injunction prohibiting the sale of the videotape. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for, inter alia, invasion of privacy and use of name and likeness in violation of Civil Code section 3344. After a bench trial, plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Borer for compensatory damages in the cumulative sum of $2.25 million and for punitive damages in the cumulative sum of $9 million.
Borer contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the amount of damages. Court agree. The judgment shall be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial on damages unless plaintiffs agree to a reduced award of compensatory damages in the cumulative amount of $150,000 and a reduced award of punitive damages in the cumulative amount of $600,000, in which event the judgment will be modified to award plaintiffs damages in those amounts, and as so modified shall be affirmed.

Defendant and appellant Jeffrey Borer surreptitiously and illegally videotaped the noted entertainer Michael Jackson and his two criminal defense lawyers, plaintiffs and respondents Mark Geragos and E. Pat Harris (plaintiffs), while Jackson and plaintiffs were flying in a chartered airplane. Borer planned to sell the videotape to a media company for a large sum of money. Before he could do so, however, plaintiffs filed suit against Borer and obtained an injunction prohibiting the sale of the videotape. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for, inter alia, invasion of privacy and use of name and likeness in violation of Civil Code section 3344. After a bench trial, plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Borer for compensatory damages in the cumulative sum of $2.25 million and for punitive damages in the cumulative sum of $9 million.
Borer contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the amount of damages. Court agree. The judgment shall be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial on damages unless plaintiffs agree to a reduced award of compensatory damages in the cumulative amount of $150,000 and a reduced award of punitive damages in the cumulative amount of $600,000, in which event the judgment will be modified to award plaintiffs damages in those amounts, and as so modified shall be affirmed.

Defendants Jose L. Perez and Arturo Bernal timely appealed from their convictions for second degree murder. The jury found true gang and firearm enhancements (for personal and principal use and discharge of a firearm causing death). The court sentenced both defendants to 40 years to life. Defendants (who joined each others briefs) raise several issues, including claims of errors relating to the gang enhancement. Courtaffirm.

Appellant James Rojas appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 1 grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)), two counts of forgery (Pen. Code, 470, subd. (a); counts 2 & 52), four counts of filing a false or forged instrument (Pen. Code, 115, subd. (a); counts 3, 4, 7, & 54), and three counts of forgery (Pen. Code, 470, subd. (d); counts 6, 53, & 55). The court sentenced appellant to prison for a total unstayed term of seven years.

Appellant Angel A. Molina appeals from the judgment on his convictions of attempted murder, assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a felon and shooting at an occupied vehicle and the true findings on gang enhancement. He also challenges his sentences on the gang enhancement. Specifically, he claims that the court erred in admitting the testimony of two police officers that related to the jury a partial license plate number of the get-away vehicle. Appellant argues that because the eyewitnesses who provided the partial license plate number to police did not testify at trial the partial plate number was inadmissible hearsay and violated his right to confront his accusers under the Sixth Amendment. As to the gang enhancement, appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the gang experts conclusion that the crimes were gang-related under Penal Code section 186.22. Appellants claims concerning the guilt phase of his trial lack merit. First, the court properly admitted the partial plate number provided to officers shortly after the shooting because the witness statements relating the plate number qualified as a spontaneous utterance and because the statements were non-testimonial. Furthermore, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to show that the attempted murder was gang-related. However, the sentences on the gang enhancements on counts 1 and 2 violated Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b) and thus cannot stand. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to correct appellants sentence.

Appellant Angel A. Molina appeals from the judgment on his convictions of attempted murder, assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a felon and shooting at an occupied vehicle and the true findings on gang enhancement. He also challenges his sentences on the gang enhancement. Specifically, he claims that the court erred in admitting the testimony of two police officers that related to the jury a partial license plate number of the get-away vehicle. Appellant argues that because the eyewitnesses who provided the partial license plate number to police did not testify at trial the partial plate number was inadmissible hearsay and violated his right to confront his accusers under the Sixth Amendment. As to the gang enhancement, appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the gang experts conclusion that the crimes were gang-related under Penal Code section 186.22. Appellants claims concerning the guilt phase of his trial lack merit. First, the court properly admitted the partial plate number provided to officers shortly after the shooting because the witness statements relating the plate number qualified as a spontaneous utterance and because the statements were non-testimonial. Furthermore, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to show that the attempted murder was gang-related. However, the sentences on the gang enhancements on counts 1 and 2 violated Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b) and thus cannot stand. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to correct appellants sentence.

Appellant Angel A. Molina appeals from the judgment on his convictions of attempted murder, assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a felon and shooting at an occupied vehicle and the true findings on gang enhancement. He also challenges his sentences on the gang enhancement. Specifically, he claims that the court erred in admitting the testimony of two police officers that related to the jury a partial license plate number of the get-away vehicle. Appellant argues that because the eyewitnesses who provided the partial license plate number to police did not testify at trial the partial plate number was inadmissible hearsay and violated his right to confront his accusers under the Sixth Amendment. As to the gang enhancement, appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the gang experts conclusion that the crimes were gang-related under Penal Code section 186.22. Appellants claims concerning the guilt phase of his trial lack merit. First, the court properly admitted the partial plate number provided to officers shortly after the shooting because the witness statements relating the plate number qualified as a spontaneous utterance and because the statements were non-testimonial. Furthermore, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to show that the attempted murder was gang-related. However, the sentences on the gang enhancements on counts 1 and 2 violated Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b) and thus cannot stand. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to correct appellants sentence.

Appellant Huey Mei Lin (Lin) wants to build a residence on real property she owns. Lin complains that the Building Department of respondent City of Gardena (the City) erred in treating as lapsed a demolition permit it had issued and in refusing to issue her a construction permit. Rather than appeal the Building Departments decision to the City Council, as required under the Gardena Municipal Code, Lin filed the present writ of mandate action to compel the City to issue the permits. However, she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and does not come within the futility exception to the exhaustion doctrine. Thus, the trial court properly sustained, without leave to amend, her third amended petition for a writ of mandate. As the attorney for the City observed when the demurrer was sustained, Lin should go through the very simple step of starting over and applying for a demolition permit.

Plaintiff and appellant John Webster owns and operates an auto body repair shop in Gilroy. Defendants and respondents Allstate Insurance Company and Progressive Casualty Insurance Company provide automobile insurance in California. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all members of a putative class of California auto body repair shops who have received payments from defendants based on rates that were allegedly below their actual repair rate. The gravamen of plaintiffs suit is that defendants allegedly unlawfully and unfairly steer customers away from plaintiffs business and towards direct repair providers (DRPs) who have a contractual relationship with defendants. Plaintiff contends that defendants pay plaintiff artificially low rates for auto body work. This is allegedly accomplished through the use of unlawful and unfair surveys of body shop rates that include rates charged by DRPs who provide volume discounts to defendants.

This is an appeal from an order of the probate court. The appeal challenges the courts determination that a transfer of real property by a decedent to the appellant by means of a deed, which was accomplished while the decedent was sick in the hospital, was made under the decedents mistake of law as to the need for such transfer, and moreover, the decedent did not understand the effect of the transfer. The court ruled the record owner of the property holds title to it as a constructive trustee for the decedents estate. Court find the trial court was correct and Court will affirm the challenged order.