CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant William Wilson was found by a jury to meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP), and committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health (the Department) for an indeterminate term, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 6600 et seq., the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). On appeal, Wilson contends the court lacked jurisdiction to conduct the SVP proceedings because the psychological evaluations filed in support of the petition for recommitment were based upon a standardized assessment protocol that was not promulgated as a regulation under the Administrative Procedures Act (Gov. Code, 11340 et seq.) (APA). Wilson also contends the amended SVPA violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and the prohibitions against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy. Court affirm.

Appellant Marta Ramirez was sentenced in 2005 on her manslaughter conviction under Californias former determinate sentencing law (DSL), which was held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (Cunningham). She appealed at that time and we affirmed the judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded for further consideration in light of Cunningham. We, in turn, vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing. Appellant was resentenced under the guidelines established by the California Supreme Court in People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 845-847 (Sandoval), which appellant now claims to be unconstitutional. Because Court are required under the doctrine of stare decisis to follow Sandoval, Court reject appellants contention and affirm the judgment.

Clifton L. Lee appeals from his conviction by jury trial of assault with a deadly weapon. His only contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his requests to replace his retained counsel and for a continuance to obtain new representation. Court find no error and affirm.

Clarence Satchell and Ralph Middlebrooks, both deceased, were members of an enormously popular funk/soul musical group called The Ohio Players. After the death of both men, then-Attorney Raul Galaz[1] contacted their surviving spouses and purported to obtain from them full assignments of their rights to the music of the Ohio Players. Galaz allegedly obtained the surviving spouses signatures on documents assigning their rights to Artist Rights Foundation (ARF), a limited liability company controlled, in part, by Galaz. Thereafter, ARF purported to assign its rights to the Ohio Players music to Segundo Suenos, another limited liability company. Believing that the surviving spouses were obtaining royalties which belonged to Segundo Suenos, Segundo Suenos brought suit against the surviving spouses[2] for breach of their assignment agreements to ARF. Segundo Suenos lost at trial, on the basis that it failed to establish the assignment from ARF to Segundo Suenos. Segundo Suenos appeals; Court affirm.

A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleged appellant E.T. committed one count of forcible lewd act upon a child in violation of Penal Code section[1]288, subdivision (b)(1). The juvenile court sustained the petition at the adjudication hearing. Appellant timely appealed from the judgment entered after the disposition hearing at which the court declared appellant a ward of the court and ordered appellants physical custody be taken from his parents or guardian and committed to the care and custody of the probation department for the purposes of suitable placement with a maximum confinement term of eight years. Appellant contends the court erred in admitting his statements to police as they had been obtained in violation of his Miranda rights and there was no substantial evidence supporting the true finding. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Melody L. Cochran ("Cochran") appeals the judgment in favor of Kristin C. Starr ("Starr"), entered following the latter's successful motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court took judicial notice of the contents of certain documents on file in the dissolution action of Cochran and her husband, William Bennett, and ruled that Cochran's judicial admissions establish that the statute of limitations has run on her claims against Starr. Court disagree, and reverse the judgment.

Maurice Nathaniel Bonds appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of possession of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11350.) He contends the trial court deprived him of his Sixth Amendment rights by limiting his cross-examination of a key prosecution witness. Court affirm.

Mother appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights to her son, a dependent child of the juvenile court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] She claims that the trial court erroneously denied her motion, made on the day of the section 366.26 hearing, to continue that hearing. Court find that the trial courts denial of that request for a continuance did not abuse its discretion. Mother also claims that the denial of the continuance forced her to proceed with ineffective counsel, but Mother has not shown either that counsel was ineffective or that counsels ineffective assistance caused her prejudice. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

This case involves the interpretation of a lease and whether the complaint by plaintiff, landlord Rosemead Boulevard Properties, LLC (hereinafter, Rosemead Properties), sufficiently alleged an issue of hazardous environmental conditions to permit it to perform invasive test drilling inside of the store of defendant, tenant Esteem Cleaners, Inc. (Esteem), to facilitate efforts by Rosemead Properties to refinance its property. We find that because a preliminary environmental site assessment reportan exhibit with the proposed second amended complaintreveals (1) county public health officials found possible hazardous chemical use (i.e., dry cleaning fluid) on the site during the early part of Esteems tenancy, and (2) Esteems assignor, a prior dry cleaning establishment, had likely used such hazardous chemicals, environmental issues exist which may be the result of Esteems activities or for which it might be responsible as assignee. Accordingly, sufficient facts were alleged in the proposed second amended complaint to permit Rosemead Properties to enter the premises and conduct testing in a reasonable and nonobstructive manner, consistent with the lease provisions and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which allows investigation of an environmental hazard associated with the tenant. The trial court thus erred in dismissing the action without leave to amend, and Court reverse.

J.P. appeals from an order of wardship (Welf & Inst. Code, 602) following a finding that he committed a sexual battery, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 243.4, subd. (e)(1)), first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459), and a lewd act upon a child, (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)).[1] He was placed home on probation in the home of his mother and contends the record does not support the juvenile courts finding that he committed the three offenses. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the order of wardship.

Plaintiff and appellant Worldwide Subsidy Group appeals from a judgment entered following the trial courts grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Jeffrey Bogert (Bogert). The trial court ruled that the undisputed evidence showed the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6.[1] We affirm. The undisputed evidence showed that appellant knew of or had reason to suspect more than one year before filing suit that a settlement agreement negotiated and executed by Bogert had impaired and compromised its rights.

Michael S. (father) appeals jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders entered in juvenile dependency court with respect to his three children. Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the dependency allegations that were based on fathers conduct.[1] Father also contends removal of the children from his care was improper and the juvenile court erroneously failed to find father to be a non-custodial, non-offending parent. Fathers claims fail. The evidence supports the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings that rendered father an offending parent and the removal and disposition orders were well within the juvenile courts discretion. According, Court affirm.

Defendant Jason Retano appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial. Defendant was convicted on two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211). The jury found true the allegation a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of one robbery (id., 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the other (id., 12022.53, subd. (b)). Following his conviction, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of 16 years and 4 months. On appeal, defendant claims evidentiary and instructional error. Court affirm.

Elvis Muoz appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced Muoz to three years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.