CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Christopher Yanke (Yanke), a police officer for respondent City of Oakland (the City), appeals from an order denying his petition for a writ of mandate in which he sought administrative review of the Citys act of placing him on indefinite medical leave. He contends the trial court erred because the City (1) violated his due process rights; and (2) denied his right to an administrative appeal under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Court conclude there was no error and affirm the order.

This is a dispute between three homeowners who live in El Cerrito and who share a common driveway. Two of those homeowners appeal contending the trial court erred when it (1) ruled they were only entitled to access a portion of the driveway, and (2) refused to enforce a parking restriction. Courrt conclude the trial court interpreted the governing deeds incorrectly and remand for the appropriate modifications.

A modification decision.

Defendant Joel Clayton Allen, Jr. (appellant), appeals his conviction by jury trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 1), carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle (Pen. Code, 12025, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2), unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm on his person or in a vehicle (Pen. Code, 12031, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3), and knowingly giving false information to a peace officer (Veh. Code, 31) (count 4). In a bifurcated trial the court found true a prior strike allegation and a prior prison term allegation. (Pen. Code, 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b).) Appellant contends his convictions on counts 1 through 3 are unsupported by substantial evidence and the court miscalculated his presentence custody credits. Court agree that the presentence credits were miscalculated and otherwise affirm.

Jim Ray Williams (appellant) contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order an extension of his commitment as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) because certain procedural requirements had not been met: the 180-day rule set forth in Penal Code section 2970, and the 30-day rule of section 2972. Court disagree, and affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Willis Jennings Fowler of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor indecent exposure (Pen. Code, 314, subd. (1)). The trial court sentenced him to three years in prison on the felony charge and 85 days in county jail, with credit for 85 days served, on the misdemeanor. Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the misdemeanor conviction. Court disagree and affirm.

A jury found appellant Craig Lamont Brown guilty as charged of two felonies: throwing a substance at a vehicle (Veh. Code, 23110, subd. (b)) and resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, 69)). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years formal felony probation, which included a term of 240 days in county jail with 45 days credit for time served. As well, the court imposed a restitution fine of $400 and a probation revocation fine in the same amount.
Appellant challenges delivery of a jury instruction on flight, as well as the credit calculation and the restitution fine. We agree that appellant is entitled to two additional custody credit days and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Appellant is presently committed to the Napa State Hospital for a term of two years, expiring on or about September 26, 2010, pursuant to a commitment order which was based on a previous finding that appellant was not guilty by reason of insanity of a 1997 conviction for burglary and receiving stolen property. He appeals, claiming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend its prior commitment order because that order had expired. The People agree that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in further committing appellant. Court also agree, and hence reverse the trial courts order and remand the matter to that court for any further appropriate civil proceedings.

In this action for dissolution of marriage, Geza E. Polony (husband), appearing in pro. per., appeals the trial courts order granting in part his request for modification of temporary spousal support and awarding attorney fees against him in the amount of $1,000. court affirm in part and reverse in part.

Defendant Anthony Milar Copeland appeals from the judgment of conviction entered after the trial court revoked his grant of probation and sentenced him to state prison.

On May 23, 2006, defendant stood charged with seven felonies (four counts of second degree burglary, one count each of grand theft, forgery, and being an accessory), one misdemeanor, and four prior conviction enhancement allegations. On that day, defendant entered into a negotiated disposition with the prosecution under which he agreed to enter a plea of no contest to the accessory charge, in exchange for dismissal of all other charges and enhancementswith waivers pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754and an understanding that there would be no initial state prison sentence. On June 27, 2006, the court suspended imposition of sentence and admitted defendant to three years probation upon specified conditions, one of which was that defendant serve 180 days in the county jail. Two months later, defendant admitted that he violated the conditions of his probation. The court reinstated his probation after adding 90 additional days in county jail, but the court warned defendant, any violations of probation, youre going to prison.

Defendant Dwayne Hatch challenges the measure of a restitution award following his no contest plea to one count of receiving stolen property.[1] He argues that he should not be required to pay restitution for items that were stolen from the victim, but never found in his possession. Court agree and reverse the restitution award.

The juvenile court adjudged appellant M.L. a ward of the court after sustaining a charge that appellant committed first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) On appeal and in a related petition for a writ of habeas corpus, appellant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to move to suppress evidence seized following a purportedly illegal arrest. We affirm the judgment and summarily deny the writ petition.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that the minor, A.I., committed attempted robbery. (Pen. Code, 211, 664.) The court declared the minor to be a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and placed him in the custody of his mother. The court also set a maximum term of confinement of two years and six months. The minor appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the allegation that he committed attempted robbery, and that the specification of a maximum term of confinement was improper. We reject these claims and affirm.

Appellants are challenging the trial courts denial of their motion to intervene in proceedings on a petition for writ of mandate. Plaintiffs Richard Sander, Joe Hicks and the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) filed a writ of mandate in the trial court seeking to obtain records from the State Bar of California and its board of governors that will facilitate plaintiffs academic research on the discrepancies in passage rates among racial and ethnic candidates for the State Bar examination. Appellants are 23 individuals of primarily Latino and African-American descent, who sought intervention to object to the disclosure of confidential information they provided to the State Bar when they applied to take the examination. The superior court denied appellants motion to intervene without prejudice to their right to again seek intervention at a later point in the proceedings. The proposed intervenors appealed from that order, and plaintiffs now move to dismiss the appeal. Court conclude the order denying intervention is nonfinal and not appealable. Therefore, Court dismiss this appeal.