CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant John Kevin Medina guilty of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)),[1]a lesser included offense of the charged offense of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)). In addition, the trial court found true that defendant had sustained two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to a total term of four years in state prison; however, execution of that sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on three years formal probation with various terms and conditions, including serving one year in a residential substance abuse treatment program. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions as they stemmed from an unlawful detention and/or an unlawful search. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Leon Patton pled guilty on March 23, 2007, to possession of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, 12280, subd. (b)) and possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5). Pursuant to the plea agreement, a sentence was imposed, the execution of the sentence suspended, and defendant was placed on probation. On November 7, 2008, the trial court found defendant violated probation and imposed the suspended sentence. Defendant contends the trial court did not understand its discretion. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

During a visit to Pinecrest Lake in August 2007, defendant Gary Jay Burgin bumped shoulders with a man going the opposite direction on a trail. A confrontation followed and defendant punched the other man, breaking his jaw. At trial, defendant claimed he acted in self-defense. A jury found him guilty[1]of battery with serious bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d). Defendant was sentenced to five years of probation with 120 days of jail time. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the version of Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2007) CALCRIM No. 358 given at his trial contained error, and (2) the prosecutors attempt to impeach his testimony by mentioning her personal knowledge of matters outside the record constituted misconduct and denied him due process of law.

Kern County residents Edith G. and Casper S. McDonald were married in December 1959. Each spouse had two children from prior relationships. Plaintiffs, Ede-Ann Walters (Walters) and Harry Geyer III (Geyer), were children of Edith and defendants, Valerie Napier (Napier) and Gail Pedersen (Pedersen), were children of Casper. Edith died in 1985 and Casper died in 2004, never having remarried. Edith and Casper executed a living trust in 1983. The trust created separate A and B subtrusts. Trust A included the couples community property, including their residence. Trust B consisted of Ediths separate property. Defendants and plaintiffs were named as successor trustees of the living trust and signed the trust instrument as successor trustees.

The minor, appellant A.L., pursuant to orders in a dependency proceeding, had lived in the same foster home from July of 2002 through April of 2008 except for a brief period in 2006. Although appellant was performing poorly in school, receiving a failing grade in all classes on an April 2008 report card, he apparently was not a behavior problem in the foster home or at school. In May of 2008, appellant received a police referral for fighting; he completed an informal probation program. In December of 2008, appellant began openly to smoke marijuana, to fight at school, and to glamorize the gang lifestyle, according to his social worker. On December 3, 2008, appellant was under the influence of marijuana at school, was detained by a school security guard, and was arrested by the police. A few days later, appellant participated in an altercation with the same security guard, cursed school personnel, and again was arrested. After the altercations at school, appellant was transferred from his foster family to a group home in a different city.

Appellant, Carl Sparks, challenges the trial courts order denying his motion for attorney fees. However, the issues raised by Sparks are not related to the motion he has appealed from. Accordingly, the order will be affirmed.

Defendant John Nguyen was convicted after jury trial of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664, subd. (a), 187).[1] The jury found true allegations that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury to a person not an accomplice ( 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.7, subd. (a)) during the commission of the offense, but not true the allegation that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated ( 189). The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for the indeterminate term of 25 years to life consecutive to the determinate term of five years.

In this case, the juvenile court found three siblings came within its dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect).[1] In its disposition, the court adjudged the minors dependent children of the court, ordered them returned home to the care and custody of mother (E.N.) on a case plan of family maintenance services, and removed them from the physical custody of the father[2] (L.B.) on a case plan of family reunification services.[3] Each parent appeals. ( 395, subd. (a)(1).)
Both father and mother seek review of the finding of jurisdiction and assert a claim of insufficiency of the evidence to establish that the children are persons described by section 300, subdivision (b). The mother additionally argues that the juvenile court improperly considered the benefits of assuming jurisdiction in assessing the risk to the children. The father maintains that there was no credible evidence that either parent had an unresolved substance abuse problem and joins in mother's arguments. Appellants do not challenge the disposition.
Court reverse.

Dan Ernest Lagomarsino appeals from a judgment upon a plea of guilty to 11 counts: five counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years of age (Pen. Code,[1] 261.5, subd. (d), counts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7), one count of dissuading a witness ( 136.1, subd. (b)(1), count 2), three counts of lewd act on a child ( 288, subd. (c)(1), counts 3, 8, 9), one count of sexual penetration of a person under the age of 18 ( 289, subd. (h), count 10), and one count of making criminal threats ( 422, count 11). Defendant also admitted that counts 2 and 11 were violent or serious felonies ( 1170.12, subd. (a), (b) & (c), 1192.7, subd. (c)(37)). He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the information and that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we consolidate with this appeal, defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel advised him to take the plea and agree to a minimum-maximum state prison term while assuring him that he would get less time. Court affirm the judgment and deny the petition.

Plaintiff Robert Hoyt appeals from the order dismissing his personal injury suit against defendants Colonial Acres Mobile Home Park and Burton Busk after defendants motion for a nonsuit was granted. Plaintiff alleged that defendants were liable for injuries he suffered as a result of a fire at a mobile home park. The nonsuit was granted on the ground that plaintiff could not prove the cause of the fire without expert testimony, and he was barred from introducing such testimony because of his failure to disclose experts. Plaintiff contends on appeal that the court erred in excluding evidence that would have shown without expert testimony how the fire was caused, and in denying his motions to continue the date of trial. Court conclude that these arguments lack merit and affirm the judgment.

This is a dispute over purported ownership of a new Oakland nightclub. Plaintiff Derrick Chapman sued defendant Naef Dagmar Saraatje, individually and doing business as At Seventeen. His first amended complaint alleged that defendant granted him half ownership of the club in exchange for his capital investment, but then excluded him from ownership and management of the club and reneged on an agreement to return his investment. Plaintiff sought an accounting, as well as damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory fraud and estoppel, and money had and received.

Defendant was forced to move to compel responses to discovery. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The trial court granted the motion to compel on November 7, 2007. The courts order (November 7 Order) advised plaintiff that failure to comply with this order or further discovery misuse may result in the imposition of future sanctions, including evidentiary, monetary, contempt or terminating sanctions.

This is a child custody dispute. Hephzibah Grimes (Wife) appeals from a change-of-custody order awarding John A. Guinn (Husband) sole physical custody of the parties son, Jarrod. Wife contends the trial court applied the wrong standard for determining the change of custody, and that the custody change is an abuse of discretion. Court disagree and affirm.

C.G. appeals from orders of the juvenile court committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice. He contends the commitment was an abuse of discretion because there was no evidence of probable benefit to him. Court affirm.