CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Leonard Earl Thompson was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, count 1)[1] and one count of felony false imprisonment ( 236, 237, count 2). The jury also found true the allegations that Thompson intentionally and personally discharged a firearm in the commission of count 1 ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)) and had personally used a semiautomatic handgun in the commission of count 2 ( 12022.5, subd. (a)). Thompson was sentenced to an aggregate term of 50 years to life in prison.

Lawrence Ron McInnis was convicted by a jury of attempting to bribe witnesses to keep them from testifying at his nephew's trial for robbery and kidnapping. On appeal, he contends that the judgment should be reversed because of "outrageous governmental conduct" by a police investigating officer. Appellant further contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to disqualify the prosecutor based on a conflict of interest. Court will affirm the judgment.

Appellant Marvin Stewart challenges the denial of presentence custody credits against his 10-year sentence for assault with a deadly weapon. In essence, he asserts that his parole was revoked for the same conduct as the new charge, so he is entitled to dual credits under People v. Bruner(1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178(Bruner). For reasons that follow, Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

After a jury trial, defendant Jose Maria Gomez was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual assault (forcible rape) of a child under the age of 14 and 10 or more years younger than defendant (former Pen. Code, 269, added by Stats. 1994, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 48, 1, eff. Nov. 30, 1994, 261, subd. (a)(2); counts 1-3) and three counts of lewd or lascivious act on a child by force ( 288, subd. (b)(1); counts 5-7).[1] The trial court imposed a total term of 45 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends that the convictions should be reversed because certain comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument constitute prejudicial misconduct. Defendant also contends that the trial court committed sentencing error when the court imposed consecutive sentences of 15 years to life on counts 2 and 3. For the reasons stated below, Court disagree and therefore we will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Gus Gerard Laverriere was convicted after a jury trial of carjacking a public bus in which he was a passenger. In bifurcated proceedings, the court found true the allegation that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction. After the court on its own motion reduced the conviction to attempted carjacking, it sentenced defendant to a term of 10 years in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a hearing to determine if a juror observed defendant in the courtroom being shackled. The Attorney General contests the challenge. Defendant also argues that the court erred in limiting his presentence credits to 15 percent of the actual days served; the Attorney General concedes this error. We find that defendant forfeited the challenge of the trial courts failure to conduct a hearing concerning the jurors possible observation of defendants shackling. We conclude further that there was no error even were the claim not forfeited. We also find that the court erred in limiting defendants presentence credits. Court therefore will order the judgment modified to reflect the correct number of days of credit and affirm the judgment as modified.

Petitioner Stan Barry Newton was charged with reckless evasion of a peace officer (Count 1), drunk driving (Count 2), and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more (Count 3). (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a), 23103, 23152, subd. (a), & 23152, subd. (b).) The amended complaint also alleged that Newton had two prior felony convictions that qualified as strikes under the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12.)[1] Prior to trial, Newton pleaded no contest to Counts 1 and 3 with the understanding that he faced a mandatory Three Strikes sentence of 25 years to life, he could make a Romero request to dismiss his strikes and thereby reduce the length of his sentence; and Count 2 would be dismissed. At sentencing, the court denied Newtons Romero request and imposed the mandatory sentence of 25 years to life.

Deleted

Appellant Bert Dewey was charged with one count of possessing child pornography. (Pen. Code, 311.11, subd. (a).) Appellant entered a plea of guilty, in exchange for an indicated sentence of four years in state prison "top and bottom." On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court violated a "plea agreement" when it imposed a $500 fine pursuant to Penal Code section 290.3. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Anthony Richard Estrada pleaded no contest to infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) in two separate cases (case Nos. SS070572A, SS072282A). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years in both cases. As one of the probation conditions, the trial court issued a protective order that defendant not harass the victim. The order was in effect until December 27, 2010.

In the underlying action, appellant Rachel Harari, a beneficiary of the Hecht Family Trust (the Trust), moved to set aside an order of the probate court affirming a binding mediation, which purported to resolve all disputes between appellant and the trustee, Abe Hecht, who is appellants brother and the respondent in this action. The basis for appellants motion was that her former attorneys failed to obtain her consent before agreeing to participate in the binding mediation. Appellant learned of her attorneys alleged misfeasance on the day of the mediation, more than one month before the court entered the order, but did not bring this issue to the attention of the court or respondent, and waited three and a half years after entry of the order before moving to vacate. The court denied appellants motion to vacate on the grounds that (1) the motion was untimely; (2) appellant failed to establish extrinsic fraud; and (3) appellant had been compensated for any damage suffered in a prior proceeding in which she sued her former attorneys. Court agree that appellant failed to seek relief in a timely and diligent manner after learning of the alleged misfeasance. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Appellant Deborah C. Tyrell and respondent Jon S. Tyrell were married in 1982.[1]Their marriage produced three children: Joshua, Drew, and Spencer. During the marriage, Jon established a practice as a general and vascular surgeon. Deborah held clerical positions for several years and then worked in the home. In the course of their marriage, they incurred several debts, including an unsecured loan for $120,000 from Wells Fargo Bank (Wells Fargo).

Appellant, Denise A. Nardi (Nardi), appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award arising from an action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Denise Nardi v. Richard DeSantis, et al. In the superior court action, Nardi sued respondents Richard DeSantis and Steven Holohan (DeSantis) for legal malpractice. DeSantis maintained that the matter was properly one for arbitration based upon a written retainer agreement and moved to compel arbitration. Nardi contended that DeSantis had failed to comply with Business and Professions Code section 6148 thereby rendering the arbitration clause void. The trial court granted DeSantis motion to compel arbitration and the matter was arbitrated before the American Arbitration Association resulting in an arbitration award which Nardi claims should have been litigated in the Superior Court as a civil action. Following the refusal of the superior court to vacate the award and subsequent to the judgment thereon, Nardi brought this appeal. For the reasons hereafter given, Court dismiss the appeal.

On May 11, 2007, Mr. Welt Pocket & Cutting, Inc. (Mr. Pocket) filed a complaint for book account and account stated based on two invoices (totaling $80,621.49) for clothing related services rendered to Ben Ryan, Inc. (BRI). The complaint alleged BRI was the alter ego of Lawn and Erin Schacter, another named defendant. Lawn was personally served on August 22, 2007.
On November 16, 2007, Mr. Pocket submitted a request to enter default to the court. Mr. Pocket submitted a judgment package on February 27, 2008, and the court entered judgment against Lawn on March 4.

On May 11, 2007, Mr. Welt Pocket & Cutting, Inc. (Mr. Pocket) filed a complaint for book account and account stated based on two invoices (totaling $80,621.49) for clothing related services rendered to Ben Ryan, Inc. (BRI). The complaint alleged BRI was the alter ego of Lawn and Erin Schacter, another named defendant. Lawn was personally served on August 22, 2007.
On November 16, 2007, Mr. Pocket submitted a request to enter default to the court. Mr. Pocket submitted a judgment package on February 27, 2008, and the court entered judgment against Lawn on March 4.