CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found Genaro Salas Blanco, Jr., guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) and assault on a child under eight years of age causing death (Pen. Code, 273ab). On appeal Blanco contends the trial court erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (b)) and miscalculated his custody and conduct credits. Court conclude that the evidence did not warrant an instruction on involuntary manslaughter.

Defendant and appellant Daniel Edward Murphy appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Murphy was sentenced to a prison term of eight years. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing him to be impeached with a prior misdemeanor conviction for petty theft. Discerning no error, Court affirm.

Minor Jose R. appeals from the order of wardship entered following a finding that he committed second degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. Jose contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile courts finding. Court agree and reverse the order.

Brandon Jerome Ysaguirre appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of battery, causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, 242 & 243, subd. (d)). He was granted probation for three years on the condition, among others, that he serve 60 days in county jail. Court affirm the judgment.

A.L., a minor, appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) entered following his admission that he committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code,
211). A. was placed in the camp community placement program and then with the Department of Juvenile Justice, for a period not to exceed five years. A.s sole contention on appeal is that the sustained petition cannot qualify as a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law, and the juvenile courts contrary statements in the record should be stricken. Because the determination of whether the offense constitutes a strike is premature, Court order the juvenile courts minute orders modified, and otherwise affirm.

Defendant and appellant Darrell Younger contends that his conviction for the second degree murder of Heather Moore should be reversed because his rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment were violated by the admission at trial of Heathers hearsay statements. As explained more fully below, we conclude that certain statements attributed to Heather constituted testimonial hearsay and their admission at trial violated appellants Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Furthermore, because we cannot say that the erroneous admission of these statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as required under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, Court reverse appellants conviction and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant and appellant Helen Lynch (Lynch) appeals the judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of plaintiff and respondent Brenlar Investments, Inc., doing business as Frank Howard Allen Realtors (FHAR), on its suit against Lynch alleging equitable indemnity, comparative negligence, contribution and breach of contract arising from Lynchs acts and omissions as a FHAR salesperson in the sale of a Sausalito apartment to Barbara Crane. Court affirm in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A jury convicted defendant Robert Goodlow of making criminal threats and stalking. Defendant contends his convictions must be reversed because (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to represent himself after trial commenced, (2) the prosecutor denied him his right to confront the complaining witness by remaining intentionally ignorant of her allegations of past domestic abuse in order to preclude defendant from discovering them before trial, and (3) there was no substantial evidence defendant criminally threatened the complaining witness. Finding no merit in defendants arguments, Court affirm the judgment.

David Erwin (Erwin) brought this negligence action in February 2005 for claimed injury from eye surgery at LasikPlus Vision Center (LasikPlus) in November 2003. He initially named LasikPlus and surgeon George Simon (Simon) as defendants, but a year later added LCA-Vision Inc. (LCA) by a Doe amendment. On a prior appeal by Erwin after a grant of summary judgment in favor of LCA (Erwin v. LCA-Vision, Inc. (Dec. 9, 2008, A117852) [nonpub. opn.]) (Erwin I), Court reversed, rejecting rulings that the entire action was untimely under the year-from-discovery statute and that the Doe amendment did not relate back (Code Civ. Proc., 340.5, 474).This second appeal by Erwin is similar. On August 30, 2006, Erwin amended his first amended complaint (FAC) to designate Stephanie Dea Sjauw, OPT [sic] (Sjauw) as Doe 3. Sjauw answered, asserting the one-year statute as one of her affirmative defenses, and then moved for summary judgment partly on that basis.[2] The motion came before the Honorable Barbara Zuniga (not the same judge as in Erwin I), and she found the action timely overall but that the Doe amendment did not relate back. Court agree and therefore affirm the resulting judgment of dismissal

Defendant Steven James Contestable (appellant) appeals his conviction of first degree murder with use of a firearm resulting in great bodily injury and death (Pen. Code, 187, 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)). He contends his trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective in failing to object to improper argument by the prosecutor and to inadmissible evidence.Court reject the contentions and affirm.

Following the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, appellant William George Fox pleaded no contest to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He also argues that a probation condition precluding him from associating with gang members is unconstitutionally vague. Court modify the challenged probation condition but otherwise affirm

Adrienne Hankins, as the co-administrator of the estate of Betty Quinn and as the personal representative of Bettys son, Anthony Hellums, appeals from the order distributing the settlement funds in the underlying asbestos litigation involving Bettys deceased husband, James Quinn. She contends that the court should have allocated 50 percent of the settlement proceeds to the estate of Betty Quinn on behalf of Hellums, the stepson of James, rather than allocating 80 percent of the settlement proceeds to Jamess daughter and wrongful

Defendant Leslie Gordon Smith appeals from his conviction, following a no contest plea, of one count of violating Penal code section 288, subdivision (a). His counsel has filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende,[2] in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record. Counsel declares he notified defendant he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wished to call to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been filed. Upon independent review of the record, Court find no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm.

Matthew Owen appeals a restraining order issued under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 that requires him to stay at least 25 yards away from his neighbor Nana Kirk and her three-year-old son.Court conclude sufficient evidence satisfied the statutory requirements for issuance of the order, and affirm.