CA Unpub Decisions

Ronald P. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights after a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] He contends the juvenile court erred in denying his oral motion for a continuance on the day of the hearing and in terminating his parental rights without, he claims, a finding of his unfitness. He further complains that he did not receive a copy of the adoption assessment report in advance of the hearing. Court affirm the order.

Appellant appeals from his conviction, entered after his plea of no contest to a single count of oral copulation with a minor and two counts of sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than appellant. Appellants counsel raises no issues but asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Appellant J.J. appeals a juvenile court order declaring her a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) after the court found she loitered with the intent to commit prostitution (Pen. Code, 653.22, subd. (a))[1] and falsely identified herself to the police ( 148.9, subd. (a)). The court placed her on probation in her mothers home. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that she loitered with intent to commit prostitution. Court affirm.

After appellant Raymond D. Jackson, Sr. repeatedly failed to make arrangements to allow himan incarcerated prisonerto make required court appearances by telephone, the trial court dismissed his underlying tort action for failure to prosecute. On appeal from the judgment of dismissal, he argues that by its dismissal, the trial court denied him access to the courts based on circumstances beyond his control. Court affirm the judgment of dismissal.

Defendant and appellant Nathaniel Ryan Regalado was convicted by jury of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459),[1]two counts of attempted first degree robbery ( 664, 211), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic or firearm ( 245, subd. (b)), two counts of false imprisonment by violence ( 236), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1)). Other than the section 245, subdivision (a)(1) conviction, each count included a finding that defendant personally used a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to 15 years in state prison. In his timely appeal from the judgment, defendant contends as follows: (1) the trial court violated his rights to due process and to present a defense by failing to grant immunity to two witnesses who exercised their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at trial, and if the issue is forfeited due to defense counsels failure to raise it below, defendant was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel; (2) trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to introduce a witnesss out-of-court statements; (3) the conviction in count 12 for violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) must be reversed because it is based on the same conduct supporting the conviction in count 6 for violation of section 245, subdivision (b); (4) defendants Sixth Amendment rights were violated by admission of out-of-court statements by anonymous callers to 911; (5) the convictions for assault with a semiautomatic firearm in counts 5 and 6 must be reduced to assault with a generic firearm, as the jurys verdict did not specify that a semiautomatic firearm was used; (6) the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct that a defendants out-of-court statements must be viewed with caution; (7) the five-year sentence for attempted first degree robbery is not authorized, as the statutory maximum is three years; (8) imposition of the upper term on one of the attempted robbery convictions, based upon facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, violated the Sixth Amendment; and (9) the trial court miscalculated defendants pretrial custody credits. The Attorney General argues the trial court erred by failing to impose a security fee of $20 on seven of the eight counts. Court hold that the punishment for attempted first degree robbery in count 3 must be reduced to three years, defendant is entitled to three additional days of presententce credit, and the abstract of judgment and minute order must be amended to reflect a $20 security fee as to each count. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Ray Anthony Lopez was convicted, following a jury trial, of the attempted murders of Pamela Green, Charles Johnson and Nick Quinn in violation of Penal Code[1] sections 187 and 664 and one count of making criminal threats in violation of section 422. The jury found true the allegations that the attempted murders were willful, deliberate and premeditated and that the crimes were all hate crimes within the meaning of section 422.75, subdivision (a). The jury also found true the allegations that appellant personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, in the commission of the attempted murders within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) and personally inflicted great bodily injury on Green within the meaning of section 12022.7. The trial court sentenced appellant to three consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole for the attempted murder convictions, plus 15 years for the various enhancements to those convictions. The trial court stayed sentence on the criminal threats conviction pursuant to section 654.

Plaintiff Lola Thompson sued Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) for injuries she allegedly suffered after she was hit by one or more shopping carts while sitting on a bench outside the Costco store in Inglewood. Costco conceded that a single shopping cart ran into her, but disputed that it caused any injury. Although the doctor who treated her at the emergency room to which she was taken reported that there was no evidence of an injury, Thompson maintained that she suffered significant injury to her knees. Thompson failed, however, to designate any medical expert witness or subpoena any treating physician to testify at trial about her alleged injury. On the day of the trial, the court granted Costcos motions in limine to preclude Thompson (the only witness for plaintiffs case in chief) from testifying about medical causation or medical bills other than the bills for the ambulance and the emergency room visit. The jury found that Costco was negligent, but that the negligence did not cause Thompson any injury. Thompson appeals, raising several issues, most of which flow from the trial courts ruling that she was precluded from testifying about medical causation and her medical bills. Because Court find the trial courts ruling was correct, Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Carol Ann Fiore, the trustee of the Allan A. Adrian Living Trust (Trust), appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Yoram Kahana and Margarey Ann Kahana following the courts granting summary judgment in favor of the Kahanas. Adrian had entered into a contract (Contract) to sell his residence (the Property) to the Kahanas. Subsequently, Adrian and the Kahanas entered into a settlement agreement (Agreement) giving the Kahanas an option to purchase the Property under certain conditions. The court found the Agreement was enforceable. Fiore contends there are disputed facts as to whether the Agreement was just and reasonable, whether the Agreement was supported by any consideration and whether the presence of a caretaker on the Property triggered the Kahanas right to purchase the Property. Fiore further contends the court erred in granting costs of proof sanctions against her. Court affirm the judgment and reverse the sanctions order.

A jury convicted defendant Robert W. Ramirez of voluntary manslaughter (count 1; Pen. Code, 192, subd. (a))[1] and attempted voluntary manslaughter (count 2; 664/192, subd. (a)) as lesser included offenses of, respectively, murder and attempted willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder. The jury also found defendant guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1).) As to the voluntary manslaughter and attempted voluntary manslaughter, the jury found true the allegations that defendant personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) and that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). As to the conviction of felon in possession of a firearm, the jury found true a gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A). The trial court sentenced defendant to 31 years, 8 months in state prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending: (1) the trial court erred in not instructing that prosecution witness Ernesto Gonzalez was an accomplice as a matter of law; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the gang enhancement; and (3) the court erred in sentencing on count 2 by imposing the section 12022.5 firearm enhancement in addition to the section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) gang enhancement. We disagree with the first two contentions, but agree that under People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501 (Rodriguez), the court erred in imposing both the firearm and gang enhancements on count 2. Court remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Edward Plummer, Jr. appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of mandate after the trial court sustained respondents demurrer without leave to amend. Court find no error, and Court affirm.

David P. Snyder appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of sexual penetration of an intoxicated person (Pen. Code,[1] 289, subd. (e)), and rape of an intoxicated person ( 261, subd. (a)(3)). The trial court sentenced him to six years in state prison. He contends (1) the court erred in admitting certain expert testimony; (2) the court erred in allowing a witness to offer an opinion as to the victim's veracity; (3) the court violated its duty to supplement the jury instructions on sexual penetration and rape of an intoxicated person; and (4) cumulative error. Court affirm.

This appeal is from a judgment quieting title to a house in favor of respondents, who lived in the house for over a decade, made the down payment, paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance, and made significant improvements to the property while appellants had legal title. Court conclude the record supports the judgment and, accordingly, affirm.

Jarett J. Negrete appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court denied his petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel The Board of Education of the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles Unified School District (collectively LAUSD) to reclassify him as a probationary teacher and reemploy him as a teacher in the district. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Jorge A. Cerda of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). Defendant admitted that he suffered a prior felony conviction for which he served a term in state prison within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated his constitutional right to counsel by permitting him to represent himself, violated his constitutional rights to counsel and due process by denying him a continuance to prepare for trial, and abused its discretion by denying his mid-trial motions for appointment of advisory counsel and for reappointment of counsel. Defendant also contends that his constitutional rights to self-representation and due process were violated when he was not provided with access to the law library. Court affirm.