CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs Mark Hughes and other individuals[1]appeal from a judgment of dismissal of their complaints against defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed) on the ground that the five-year statute (Code Civ. Proc.,[2] 583.310) had run. Plaintiffs contend: (1) the trial court should have found that Lockheed was estopped from using the five-year statute as the basis for its motion for dismissal; (2) the trial court should have found that trial within the five-year statutory deadline was impossible, impractical, or futile; (3) with respect to certain plaintiffs who filed their claims later than the others, the trial court should have found that mandatory tolling applied such that the five-year statute did not bar their claims; and (4) the trial court erred in dismissing because the case was subject to a tolling period that ended within six months of the five year deadline ( 583.350). Court find no error, and Court affirm.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5,1defendant Jose Rivera Ibarra[3]entered a guilty plea to transportation of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a) (count 1)), and possession of marijuana for sale (Health and Saf. Code, 11359 (count 2)). On Fourth Amendment grounds, he now challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Howard Paul Dannelley of possessing a knife on school grounds (Pen. Code, 626.10), and he admitted a prison prior. Defendant challenges the pronouncement of a prison term because the trial court intended to suspend imposition of a sentence. Court affirm with instructions to clarify the sentencing minute order.

Defendant and appellant Wendy Carolina Colorado pled guilty to knowingly presenting a false statement in support of a claim for an insurance policy benefit. (Pen. Code, 550, subd. (b)(1).)[1] Defendant contends that the amount of restitution she was ordered to pay the victim as a condition of probation should be reduced to zero. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Roy Wayne Chism was previously convicted of a sex offense and, as a result, is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290 et seq.[1] Defendant appeals from a jury conviction, because he believes there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions on the following two counts: count 2, failure to register each residence in violation of section 290.010; and count 3, failure to register as a transient in violation of section 290.011, subdivision (b). With respect to count 3, he contends the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to define the term transient to the jury. He also argues the trial court erred by not giving an unanimity instruction on count 1, failure to register within five days of changing residences, and count 4, failing to advise prior agency of a new residence. In addition, defendant requests a correction to the abstract of judgment to reflect the correct number of days of presentence credit.

This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile versus motorcycle accident involving real party in interest Justin Fitch while he was riding on streets, and at an intersection, owned or controlled by petitioner City of Moreno Valley (the City). The City demurred and moved to strike. Both motions were based on the legal theory that, contrary to real party in interests allegations, there was no actionable dangerous condition at the subject intersection because the City was entitled to sign/signal immunity. (Gov. Code, 830, 830.4.) The trial court denied the motions and the City filed a petition for writ relief.

Defendant and appellant Charles David Lee, Jr., was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 1),[1]possession of a deadly weapon ( 12020, subd. (a)(1), count 2), possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359, count 3), and possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a) count 4). It was also alleged that he had served two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant initially pled not guilty. Subsequently, he filed a motion quash the search warrant and suppress evidence, which was denied. After a series of other motions were filed and denied, defendant entered into a plea agreement and pled no contest to counts 1 and 3. He also admitted the two prior convictions. The remaining counts were dismissed. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to a total term of three years four months in state prison. Defendant filed a notice of appeal based on the denial of the motion to suppress. Court affirm.

The child who is the subject of this dependency proceeding was born in 2008 at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton. She came to the attention of the Department of Childrens Services[3](the department) when hospital staff reported that the mother (Mother) tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of delivery, although the child tested negative. Further investigation revealed that Mother had a long history of substance abuse and had failed to reunify with two other children. Mother reported that the childs fathers first name was Robert, but she did not know his last name or his whereabouts. He was not named on the birth certificate.

Petitioner H.T.[1](mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services as to her children, K.K. and F.K. (the children) and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code[2]section 366.26 hearing. Mother argues that the court erred in finding it detrimental to return the children to her care. In the alternative, she contends that the court erred in finding she failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the case plan regarding F.K., and thereby terminating services at the six-month hearing. Court deny the writ petition.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition thereto, which we conclude adequately address the issues raised by the petition. Court have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his case and the subsequent denial of his motion for attorney fees and expert fees. Plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement, indicating his case would be dismissed after he moved for an award of attorney fees. The court set a dismissal hearing. Plaintiff did not file the motion for fees prior to the dismissal hearing. At the dismissal hearing, the court concluded plaintiff did not have good cause for failing to file the fee motion prior to the hearing, and dismissed the case. Plaintiff then filed a motion for attorney and expert fees; the court denied the motion on the ground it was untimely because it had not been filed prior to the dismissal. Court conclude the court abused its discretion by dismissing the case as settled and reverse the judgment.

Stephanie Gutierrez and Luis Ramirez were shot to death on the evening of January 13, 2007. Defendant Edgar Ivan Zavala was tried for the first degree murder of the victims. The primary witness against defendant was his accomplice, Armando Ayala. Ayala testified defendant was the shooter and Ayala did not know defendant was going to shoot anyone. The jury convicted defendant of the second degree murder of Stephanie Gutierrez. The jury found it was not true that he personally discharged a firearm, resulting in great bodily injury or death. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the second count of murder with Luis Ramirez as the victim, and a mistrial was declared.[1] Defendant was sentenced to prison for a term of 15 years to life. He appeals, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction based on a theory of aiding and abetting. In a related argument he claims the trial court erred in its response to a jury question regarding the liability of a shooter versus an aider and abettor. Court affirm.

Appellant Fred Aaron Alvarez stands convicted, following a jury trial, of premeditated murder in which he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d).) Following a bifurcated court trial, he was found to have suffered two prior serious felony convictions (id., 667, subd. (a)) that were also strikes (id., 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)), and to have served two prior prison terms (id., 667.5, subd. (b)). Sentenced to prison for a total of 100 years to life plus 10 years, he now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we will reject his various claims of error and affirm.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder of a peace officer (Pen. Code, 664, 187), one count of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215), one count of driving in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others while evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2), and one count of hit and run driving with injury (Veh. Code, 20001, subd. (a)). He contends substantial evidence does not support his attempted murder convictions on any of the theories presented.