CA Unpub Decisions

The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (the Act) sets forth basic requirements for open meetings by various state entities, including defendant California Horse Racing Board (the Board), and mandates public access to and an opportunity for participation in the actions of those entities. (Gov. Code, 11120, 11121.) Plaintiff Jerry Jamgotchian appeals the dismissal of his complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the Board had repeatedly violated the Act when defendants Richard Shapiro (former chairman of the Board) and Ingrid Fermin (former executive director) curtailed his right to speak and criticize the Board at its meetings. We find that the trial court properly sustained the Boards demurrer, because complete transcripts of the hearings in question (of which the trial court took judicial notice) reveal that Jamgotchian either did speak or was justifiably curtailed from speaking when, for example, he wanted to speak about issues not on the agenda. Jamgotchian thus failed to establish any violations of the Act.

Robert Ronald Eldon appeals from the judgment entered on his plea of nolo contendere to felony driving under the influence of alcohol with priors (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a), 23550, 23550.5.) He also admitted one prior conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and having served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to prison for three years eight months consisting of the low term for the offense doubled as a second strike, plus a one year term for the prior prison term. Police officers made a traffic stop of a vehicle appellant was driving, and determined he showed signs of intoxication. A blood alcohol test showed a blood alcohol level of 0.24 percent.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause challenging the validity of his plea based on assertions of ineffective counsel. The trial court denied his request for the certificate of probable cause.

Appellant Vicente Perez was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code[1] section 211. Appellant Jose Rosales Cruz was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in violation of section 211, and one count of resisting arrest in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1). The jury found true the allegations that in the commission of the robberies a principal was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1), a principal personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (e)(1) and Cruz personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (e)(1). The jury also found true the allegation that the robberies were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) and the offense of resisting arrest committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (d). The trial court sentenced appellant Cruz to a total term of 23 years, 8 months in state prison. The court sentenced appellant Perez to a total term of 14 years in state prison.

This is an appeal from a judgment following a jury trial in an employment discrimination case and from an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. For the reasons hereafter set forth, Court reverse the judgment and order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Appellant Jose Maldonado appeals from his conviction of two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 664),[1]and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found firearm and gang allegations to be true. ( 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A), (1)(C).) Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence of deliberation and premeditation to support the attempted murder convictions. He and respondent agree that the abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects the convictions and sentences. We modify the abstract of judgment to reflect appellants convictions and the resulting sentences. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the convictions, Court affirm the judgment.

Jose Antonio Rivas, aka Carlos Andrades, appeals from the order denying his motion to vacate a judgment. On November 27, 1995, he pled guilty to possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and was sentenced to jail for 180 days. Execution of his sentence was stayed and he was placed on three years formal probation.

Timothy C. Hunter appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) with the finding that in the commission of the offense he personally used a firearm, a handgun, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for 13 years, consisting of the middle term of three years plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement. On appeal, he requests that this court conduct an independent review of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion.

Robert A. Smith appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to six counts of continuous sexual abuse with a child under the age of 14 years, counts 1-6 (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a)); two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 years, counts 7 and 8 (Pen. Code, 261.5, subd. (d)); unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, count 9 (Pen. Code, 261.5, subd. (c)); and using a minor for sex acts, count 10 (Pen. Code, 311.4, subd. (c)).[1] He was sentenced to prison for 48 years consisting of in count 1, the upper term of 16 years; in counts 2 and 3, two consecutive terms of 16 years; in counts 4, 5, and 6, 16 years each, concurrent; in counts 7 and 8, four years each, concurrent; and in counts 9 and 10, three years each, concurrent. Appellant contends the convictions in counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 must be reversed, and that the trial court erred in calculating his presentence credits. For reasons stated in the opinion we reverse appellants convictions in counts 2 through 6 and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to dismiss counts 2 through 6, to set aside the sentence and resentence appellant on the remaining counts, and to award appellant additional days of presentence credits. Additionally, we direct the trial court to impose a court security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 for each conviction.

Hugo A. Gonzalez appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of six counts of second degree robbery, counts 1 through 5 and count 7 (Pen. Code, 211) with the finding that in counts 1, 3, 4, and 7 he personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) and that in count 5 he personally used a deadly weapon, a screwdriver. After a court trial, he was found to have suffered a prior conviction for robbery, a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a), and a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) through (d) and 667, subd. (b) through (i)) and was sentenced to prison for a total of 27 years and four months. The sentence consisted of in count 1, the upper term of five years, doubled to ten years by reason of his prior strike conviction, plus one year for the weapon enhancement. For the remaining counts, appellant was sentenced to one third the middle term, or one year, doubled to two years, plus four months each for the weapon enhancement in counts 3, 4, 5, and 7, plus five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. The prosecutions request for restitution was unopposed by the defense and the court ordered restitution in the amounts set forth in the prosecutions sentencing memorandum.

A jury convicted defendant Chris Emory of first degree murder in the shooting death of a 15-year old boy. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 189.) The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life for the murder, plus an additional 25 years for personal use of a firearm in committing the murder. (Pen. Code, 190, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d).) Defendant appeals and contends that (1) the prosecutor deprived defendant of a fair trial by using peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors on the basis of race; (2) the court erred in failing to address defendants postconviction motion to remove his appointed counsel and to provide new counsel or to allow self-representation; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the admission of certain evidence and to the prosecutors closing argument to the jury, and in failing to renew a challenge to the prosecutors use of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Court reject the contentions and affirm the judgment.

The juvenile court in Napa County committed appellant Andrew C.who had turned eighteen years old just one month earlierto the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF)[1] for a maximum time of confinement of six years, four months. Andrew appeals, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in (1) committing him to the DJF without first considering less restrictive alternatives, and (2) selecting the aggravated term on a robbery charge. Court disagree and affirm.

Appellants Derek H. Taylor and Debra Ann Sangster were convicted after a joint jury trial of possession of methamphetamine for sale. Both appealed, each raising different and unrelated issues. Taylor contends that he, or at least his trial counsel, should have been permitted to attend a pretrial hearing regarding whether the prosecution was obligated to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. He also contends that his rights were violated when, while he was handcuffed during a search of his apartment, a police officer asked him for the combination to a safe so the police could open and search it.
For her part, Sangster contends that her mid-trial motion to sever her case from Taylors should have been granted. She also argues that during closing argument, the prosecutor improperly commented on her post arrest silence and decision not to testify. Court reject all of the arguments raised by Taylor and Sangster on appeal, and affirm their convictions and sentences.

Defendant Anthony Wayne Myers seeks reversal of the judgment below, issued after remand from this court, sentencing him to a total prison term of 46 years four months to life for the commission of numerous sex offenses. Court affirm the judgment, but order the trial court to modify the abstract of judgment to correct a clerical error.

Plaintiff Christopher Hall and defendant Ben Lewis are former domestic partners (though they never registered as such). After their breakup in 2006, Hall filed this civil suit against Lewis seeking damages, restitution and an equitable lien against a two-unit residential building to which Lewis held title. The case was tried before the court, which determined that Hall did not have an ownership interest in the real property, but was entitled recover $22,400 for time he spent assisting in renovations to the property. Lewis appeals from the judgment, arguing, among other things, that it was based on an erroneous legal theory of unjust enrichment. Court agree and reverse.