CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant, Joseph Morales, of first degree robbery (Pen. Code 211),[1]during which he used a deadly weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), residential burglary ( 459), while someone was present in the residence ( 667.5, subd. (c)), receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)), vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd.(a)) and misdemeanor hit and run (Veh. Code, 20002, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to prison for 7 years and appeals, claiming error in the admission of evidence and instruction of the jury. Court reject his contentions and affirm, while directing the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment and minutes of the sentencing hearing to correct errors therein.

George Small, plaintiff and appellant (hereafter plaintiff), appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court granted the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16[1]special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion,[2]filed by defendants and respondents Keith Schauermann, M.D., St. Bernardine Medical Center, and Suzanne Fullerton van Hall (hereafter referred to collectively as defendants or individually by name). Defendants filed their anti-SLAPP motion in response to plaintiffs complaint seeking damages from them on various theories of recovery including libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged in that complaint that he is an obstetrician and gynecologist who for many years had staff privileges at St. Bernardine Medical Center (St. Bernardine); after plaintiff left St. Bernardine, he applied for staff privileges at Pioneers Memorial Hospital (Pioneers); Pioneers requested information from St. Bernardine about plaintiff; and St. Bernardine responded in a letter (drafted by its attorney, defendant van Hall, and signed by defendant Schauermann as the then-head of obstetrics and gynecology at St. Bernardine). Statements about plaintiff contained in that letter are the basis for plaintiffs defamation cause of action and are also some but not all of the conduct alleged as the basis for his other theories of recovery.

A jury convicted defendant, Rodney Lopez, of two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)),[1] during which he used a deadly weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and inflicted serious bodily injury ( 12022.7, subds. (a) & (e))[2] and two counts of battery ( 243, subd. (d)), during which he used a deadly weapon. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had suffered two strike priors ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)).[3] Defendant was sentenced to prison for two consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, plus seven years, and appeals, claiming the evidence of intent is insufficient to support his attempted murder convictions and the jury was misinstructed. Court reject his contentions and affirm, while directing the trial court to correct errors in the abstract of judgment and minutes of the court trial on defendants priors.

A jury convicted defendant, Rodney Lopez, of two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)),[1] during which he used a deadly weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and inflicted serious bodily injury ( 12022.7, subds. (a) & (e))[2] and two counts of battery ( 243, subd. (d)), during which he used a deadly weapon. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had suffered two strike priors ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)).[3] Defendant was sentenced to prison for two consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, plus seven years, and appeals, claiming the evidence of intent is insufficient to support his attempted murder convictions and the jury was misinstructed. Court reject his contentions and affirm, while directing the trial court to correct errors in the abstract of judgment and minutes of the court trial on defendants priors.

Ernie Flores (defendant) argues that his conviction for robbery is based on insufficient evidence. We will affirm the robbery convictions (counts 1 & 2) and strike the petty theft with a prior petty theft conviction (count 3).

This appeal involves an award of attorneys fees and costs made in a CEQA[1]case brought by the Committee of 1000 (the Committee) against the Palm Springs Unified School District (the District). In our recent decision in an earlier related appeal, case No. E045414, we decided the CEQA issues in favor of the District and reversed the judgment in favor of the Committee. Therefore, Court also reverse the order granting attorneys fees and costs to the Committee, which is no longer the prevailing party.

A jury convicted defendant, James Fuller, of two counts of first degree home robbery (Pen. Code, 211/212.5, subd. (a))[1]and one count each of trespass (Pen. Code, 602),[2]dissuasion of a witness ( 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), possession of a billy club ( 12020, subd. (a)(1)) and resisting a police officer ( 148, subd. (a)(1)). The jury further found that defendant had suffered a prior conviction which was both serious and constituted a strike ( 667, subds. (a),(c) & (e)). Defendant was sentenced to prison for 19 years and appeals, claiming his motion for severance should have been granted and the jury was misinstructed. Court reject his contentions and affirm while directing the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to correct errors therein.

The People appeal from judgment entered following the trial court dismissing the case in the interests of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.[1] On the last day the case could be tried, the trial court determined there were no courtrooms available for trial. The following day the court granted defendant Terrion Engrams motion to dismiss under section 1382.
The People argue the trial court erred in failing to consider the availability of civil courtrooms, including special civil proceeding courtrooms, for trial of the instant case, as required under section 1050, subdivision (a).[2] The People further contend that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find there was good cause to continue defendants case beyond the section 1382 limitation period.

Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her four children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1]She argues that her parental rights should not have been terminated because the juvenile court should have applied the beneficial parental relationship exception and beneficial sibling relationship exception to termination of her parental rights. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i) & (v)).[2]
We conclude mother waived these issues on appeal by not asserting them in the trial court. Furthermore, mother did not meet her burden of establishing the exceptions applied. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

After his first trial ended in a mistrial, defendant Darrell Scott Henry was retried and convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, 191.5, subd. (a)), driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (b)), driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding .08 percent and causing injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (b)), with allegations as to each count that defendant inflicted great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd.(a).) He was sentenced to an aggregate term of nine years in state prison and appealed.

About 1:00 oclock on the afternoon of April 28, 2008, J.B. (the victim) noticed that a bag of motorcycle equipment and some other items were missing from the patio at his home in Mira Loma. About the same time, the victim saw defendant and Anthony Ocasio (Ocasio), walking westward along a road that runs beside a drainage ditch behind his property. The two were carrying a bed sheet, hammock-style, between them. To the victim, they appeared to be acting a little suspicious. The victim grabbed a golf club and drove to a nearby park, through which the road and the drainage ditch run, to intercept the two men. After confronting them, the victim asked them what they were doing and pulled aside the bed sheet where he saw his motorcycle bag. The bag contained three pairs of boots, a helmet, gloves, and goggles. At that point, the two men dropped the sheet and defendant began punching the victim, hitting him in the head about three times, while Ocasio grabbed the golf club and started swinging it at the victim. The victim was able to escape and called 911 on his cell phone. Defendant and Ocasio attempted to pick up the sheet with the stuff inside of it and [run] towards the southwest corner of the . . . park area. When the two men dropped the sheet and ran away, the victim saw that they had also stolen his computer monitor. On October 10, 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of robbery, petty theft, and burglary. (Pen. Code 211, count 1; 484 subd. (a), count 2; 459, count 3.)

Petitioner D.T. (Father) filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile courts order denying him reunification services as to his seven-year-old son, B.T., and two-year-old daughter, G.T., and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] Father contends the juvenile court erred when it found it would not be in the childrens best interest to offer him reunification services. He also contends that he was denied due process of law when the court refused Father a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the mother at trial. For the reasons explained below, we reject these contentions and deny the petition.

Carlos Trevino (Trevino) appeals from a judgment that granted a petition for civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 6600 et seq.[1] He contends that the superior court erred in not granting one or more of his motions to dismiss the petition. For example, he contends that the petition should have been dismissed because the psychiatric evaluations used to support the petition are invalid and thus reversal is required. Trevino also contends that the recent amendments to the SVPA are unconstitutional. For the following reasons, Court affirm the judgment in its entirety.

A.M. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26 ) to her four children.[1] Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated July 14, 2009, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). We extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief which she later did. In her letter, she contends she did everything that was required of her under the court-ordered plan for reunification and deserves a second chance to be a parent to her children. Having reviewed the appellate record as summarized below, we conclude appellants argument does not establish that the juvenile court committed any error affecting the outcome of this case (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994) and will affirm.