CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and Appellant Salvatore B. D'Anna (Appellant) appeals a judgment that grants a petition to confirm an arbitration award, brought by defendant and respondent PacifiCare, a health insurer, and its related entities (PacifiCare), and denies Appellant's related request to vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc., 1286 et seq.)[1] Appellant first contends the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting PacifiCare's petition since, in his view, there was no enforceable agreement to arbitrate, so that the trial court should have set aside or reconsidered its earlier ruling compelling arbitration. Court have considered Appellant's claims and find that they are unsupported by the record or the applicable law. The trial court's rulings were correct and Court affirm.

Noel Scott appeals from an order granting in part and denying in part his petition under Probate Code section 15409, subdivision (a)[1] to modify and/or reform the Noel Scott Trust. Scott, who is incarcerated in Vacaville State Prison, sought to increase his monthly cash payment from $50 to $250, and the probate court doubled Scott's monthly distribution to $100 but denied any further increase. Scott contends (1) the probate court erred because $100 per month is insufficient to account for inflation or pay his medical and dental expenses, the cost of which he must bear; (2) the trust is ambiguous; and (3) the court ignored evidence establishing a variety of changed circumstances assertedly unforeseen by the trustor. Court affirm the order.

Russell H. and L.S. (the parents) appeal judgments terminating their parental rights to two of their daughters, H.H. and T.H. (the children), and denials of their Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petitions. They contend the court erred by denying their section 388 petitions and by finding the children to be adoptable. They also assert the court erred by not finding the sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights and adoption applied in the case. Additionally, L.S. asserts the court erred by not finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of her parental rights applied in this case, and by designating the children's caretakers as their prospective adoptive parents. Each parent joins in the arguments presented by the other parent. Court affirm the judgments.

Andrew Rodriguez was charged with attempted murder (count 1; Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a)),[1]assault with a firearm (count 2; 245, subd. (a)(2)), first degree burglary (count 3; 459), kidnapping (count 4; 207, subd. (a)), child endangerment (count 5; 273a, subd. (a)), carrying a concealed and stolen gun (count 6; 12025, subd. (b)(2)), and carrying a loaded and stolen firearm in a public place (count 7; 12031, subd. (a)(2)). The jury convicted defendant of willful attempted murder, assault with a firearm, first degree burglary, child endangerment, and carrying a loaded and stolen firearm in a public place. Regarding the attempted murder count, the jury found that the crime was premeditated and deliberate. The jury acquitted defendant of kidnapping and of carrying a concealed and stolen gun. He was sentenced to a total prison term of 29 years to life. Defendant appealed. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) his due process rights were violated because his conviction for premeditated and deliberate attempted murder is not supported by sufficient evidence, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to request that the jury be instructed in accordance with Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CALCRIM No. 625, which would have pinpointed the theory that voluntary intoxication negated the requisite specific intent for premeditated and deliberate attempted murder. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

In this matter, we have determined that in 2007 the Appellate Division of the San Bernardino Superior Court possessed the authority to impose monetary sanctions for the filing of a frivolous appeal and, moreover, did not abuse its discretion in finding that the instant appeal was frivolous. Accordingly, Court discharge the alternative writ of mandate and deny the petition.

A jury found defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a shuriken (throwing star) (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(1))[1]and not guilty of unlawful possession of a billy club ( 12020, subd. (a)(1)).[2] In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had suffered a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)) and two prior strike convictions ( 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). As a result, defendant was sentenced to a total term of 25 years to life in state prison. Defendants sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the jurys finding that he had unlawfully possessed a shuriken. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Todd Jefferson Webster was hired to work as a mechanic at a used car dealership in Arizona. After he had worked there for one whole day, he disappeared and so did a Lexus belonging to another dealership employee. One day after that, defendant crashed the Lexus into a dry wash in Twentynine Palms. The true finding on the 1985 Ohio prior conviction allegation is reversed, the judgment with respect to the sentence is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

A jury found defendant guilty of transportation of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) (count 1); possession of heroin with intent to sell (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) (count 2); being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3); and unlawful possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1)) (count 4). The jury also found true that defendant was personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c)) in the commission of counts 1 and 2. Defendant later admitted that he had sustained four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and nine prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). As a result, defendant was sentenced to a total term of 32 years to life in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends, (1) the trial court erred in admitting his statements to the police, and (2) his statements to the police should have been excluded, as they were involuntary. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

The juvenile court found true that minor had committed a burglary (Pen. Code, 459) when he illegally entered a truck with an intent to commit a theft as alleged in a subsequent Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. Following a dispositional hearing, minor was continued a ward of the court and placed on probation on various terms and conditions. Minors sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court failed to comply with the mandates of Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 when it failed to declare his offense a felony or misdemeanor at the time of sentencing. Court agree with the parties and will remand the matter.

Prior to trial, defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, to wit, a shotgun (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1))[1](count 2). The following day, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree robbery ( 211) with the personal use of a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court thereafter found true that defendant had sustained a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike conviction ( 667, subd. (c), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 21 years in state prison. Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury with a flight instruction. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a judgment wherein he pled guilty to one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 years, one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 16 years, and one misdemeanor count of failure to register as a sexual offender.

A modification decision.

Plaintiff Wayne Carter appeals from a judgment following the trial courts determination that his action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff had previously obtained judgment in a breach of contract action against sellers of a house who reneged on the sale and sold the house to a third party. In the present action, plaintiff sued defendants IRES Company and Ryan Marshall, who represented the third party in the latter transaction. For reasons explained below, we hold that the res judicata does not bar the present action and Court therefore reverse the judgment.

Barbara Nguyen appeals from a judgment of conviction of procuring a minor under the age of 16 for prostitution (Pen. Code, 266i, subd. (b)(2))[1] (count one) and causing, inducing, and persuading a child under the age of 16 to engage in a lewd act ( 266j) [2] (count two) following a court trial. The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of five years, consisting of a lower term of three years on count one and a consecutive one-third of the midterm on count two. The court imposed a restitution fine of $2,000 and a commensurate parole revocation fine of $2,000, suspended unless parole is revoked. ( 1202.4, subd. (b); 1202.45.). Court find no violation of section 654 and affirm.