CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Thomas D. Gatto, the former client of defendant attorneys Philip G. Panitz and Ryan D. Schaap, and the law firm of Panitz Schaap,[1]brought this action for legal malpractice, alleging that they gave him negligent advice with regard to the appropriate time to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in order to have Gattos tax debts discharged in bankruptcy. Panitz Schaap successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the scope of their representation was explicitly limited to negotiating an offer in compromise of the tax debts with the taxing agencies, and did not include filing the bankruptcy petition.[2] We conclude that Gatto failed to demonstrate that Panitz Schaap owed him a duty with regard to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, and also cannot demonstrate that any conduct by Panitz Schaap was the legal cause of his alleged injury. Court therefore affirm the trial courts grant of summary judgment in favor of Panitz Schaap.

A jury convicted defendant Saul Viera Vazquez of assault on a child causing death (Pen. Code, 273ab)[1]and involuntary manslaughter ( 192, subd. (a)), a lesser included offense of murder. It also found that in committing involuntary manslaughter, he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to 25 years to life on the assault; the sentence on involuntary manslaughter was stayed. He appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending: (1) that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony; (2) that Evidence Code section 1109, subdivision (a)(3), is unconstitutional; and (3) that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect a conviction of involuntary manslaughter rather than voluntary manslaughter. Court order the abstract so corrected and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Jose Adolfo Castillo appeals from the trial courts postjudgment order revoking his probation and placing into effect a previously stayed two-year state prison sentence, contending the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation. The court determined Castillo had violated the terms and conditions of his probation because he failed to keep his probation officer advised of his work and home addresses and telephone numbers at all times. We conclude there was insufficient evidence to sustain revocation on that ground. In these circumstances, the revocation of probation was an abuse of discretion. The order is reversed.

A jury convicted defendant Veronica Soto of one count of attempted robbery ( 664/211) and one count of attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle ( 664 & Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)). Her appeal contends that there was prejudicial instructional error. Court are not persuaded and therefore affirm the judgment.

Appellant Freddie Trone appeals from a judgment entered after a jury trial in which he was convicted of possession of count 1, a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and count 2, the unlawful possession of ammunition ( 12316, subd. (b)(1)). Appellant admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction. ( 1170.12, subds. (a)(d), 667, subds. (b)(i).) Appellant was sentenced to state prison for six years. Court affirm with modifications.

K.D. ("Mother") appeals the jurisdiction and disposition orders of the juvenile court regarding her daughter J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 355, 358.) Court affirm.

Gonzalo Eric Chavez appeals a judgment after his guilty plea to one count of felony driving while intoxicated. (Veh. Code, 23550.5, 23152, subd. (a).) The court sentenced Chavez to two years in state prison. Court conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying probation. Court affirm.

The juvenile court found that defendant and appellant Matthew S. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because he committed a felony, second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211.) The juvenile court declared Matthew a ward of the court and placed him on home probation on various terms and conditions, including the conditions that he perform 200 hours of community service, pay $100 to the restitution fund, and pay victim restitution of $399. The juvenile court awarded Matthew one day of credit and set a five year maximum period of physical confinement.
On appeal, Matthews appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there any arguable issues on appeal. Court have reviewed the record and affirm the adjudication order.

An amended information charged Torrence with making criminal threats and personally using a firearm during commission of the crime; misdemeanor brandishing of a firearm; and misdemeanor vandalism. ( 422, 12022.5, subd. (a), 417, subd. (a)(2), 594, subd. (b)(2)(A).) The jury acquitted Torrence of making criminal threats, convicted him of misdemeanor vandalism, and could not agree upon the charge of misdemeanor brandishing. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Torrence on 36 months probation, with terms and conditions including confinement in county jail for 48 days and payment of fees and fines. The court awarded Torrence 48 days of presentence custody credit and deemed the jail sentence served. It dismissed the charge of misdemeanor brandishing a weapon in the interest of justice.
The judgment is affirmed.

M.G. (mother), appearing in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 with regard to her daughter D.G. Court summarily deny the petition because mother has failed to comply with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court (rule 8.452).

As pertinent on appeal, a jury convicted defendant Patricia Anne Ordway of first degree premeditated murder and found true a special circumstance that she committed the killing to prevent the victim from testifying as a witness to a crime. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(10).) Additionally, the jury convicted defendant of elder abuse, two counts of forgery, and one count of grand theft. ( 368, subds. (b)(1), (d), 470, subd. (a), 487, subd. (a).) Sentenced to a term of life without parole, defendant on appeal contends (1) the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence that undermined her defense of third party culpability, and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the special circumstance finding that defendant killed the victim to prevent him from testifying against her. Court disagree and shall affirm the judgment with a minor modification.

A jury found defendants Quintaurus Sardin and Stevivon Booker guilty of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (b); undesignated references are to this code) and unlawfully discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling ( 246), and found true a special allegation that both defendants personally used a firearm in commission of the assault ( 12022.5). The jury also found Sardin guilty of the additional charge of negligent discharge of a firearm ( 246.3). The court sentenced Sardin to an aggregate term of 10 years 8 months in state prison, and Booker to an aggregate term of 7 years in state prison. On appeal, both defendants contend the evidence was insufficient to support either the jurys verdict or its true finding as to the firearm use enhancement. Court disagree and shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Bel Air Mart (Bel Air) is the anchor tenant in a shopping center owned by plaintiffs. After a dispute arose over Bel Airs use of common areas behind the store, plaintiffs filed suit for declaratory relief. The trial court found that Bel Air violated its lease by placing large seasonal storage containers in the centers parking spaces. However, the court also concluded that Bel Airs practice of keeping bread racks and similar items in parking spaces was permissible under lease provisions allowing the use of common areas for the loading and unloading of merchandise. Court agree with the trial court that the use of the refrigerated trailers in the loading dock was not at issue in this suit. However, we also conclude that the trial court erred in finding that Bel Airs storage of bread racks and other items in parking spaces was permissible under lease provisions that allow the loading and unloading of merchandise. Court reverse that part of the judgment, obviating the need to address plaintiffs other claims on appeal.

In the spring of 2006, Defendant Charles Harvey and his codefendant Brian Jones wreaked havoc on a stretch of Highway 12 near Rio Vista, California. Engaging in a high-speed chase with a California Highway Patrol officer, running cars and a big rig truck off the road, and shooting a woman, the two ultimately forced two victims out of their pickup truck at gunpoint and continued to flee in the stolen vehicle. Later, when defendant and Jones were arrested, the police found personal items from the pickup, which belonged to the victims, scattered about the home where defendant and Jones were found. Convicted on one count of attempted carjacking, two counts of carjacking, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and two counts of receiving stolen property, defendant appeals his sentence.