CA Unpub Decisions

First, he contends that his sentence was imposed based on a revised version of Penal Code section 1170, which was not the law when the offenses for which he was sentenced were committed, thus violating the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws; and the California Supreme Court's authorization of the retroactive application of such law deprived him of due process of law. On December 3, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant for the third time. The court imposed a sentence of 16 years in state prison consisting of the aggravated term for both counts one and two to be run consecutively. On January 3, 2008, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Respondent Robert Barnes was seriously injured while riding a dirt bike when he ran into a rope that had been stretched across a private road near appellant Edward Andersons home. Anderson and two codefendants were criminally prosecuted as a result of the incident. After he was acquitted, Anderson brought an action for malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Barnes and his wife, respondent Wendy Barnes (hereafter, Barnes), based on the allegations that they had made false statements to law enforcement and on television regarding Andersons involvement in the incident. Respondents brought a special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which provides for dismissal of unsubstantiated lawsuits based on claims arising from the defendants constitutionally protected speech or petitioning activity. (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 60 (Equilon).) The trial court granted the section 425.16 motion and Anderson appeals, contending that the trial court erred because (1) the meritorious malicious prosecution cause of action is based upon illegal conduct, consisting of a false statement to police, that is not constitutionally protected; and (2) the defamation cause of action is also meritorious. Having performed our independent review, Court conclude for the reasons stated below that the trial court properly granted the motion to strike the complaint under section 425.16 and Court will therefore affirm the order.

Defendant Corie McNeil Jefferson was charged by felony complaint filed June 29, 2007, with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a))[ and resisting or deterring an officer ( 69). The complaint further alleged that defendant had two prior strikes ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and two prior serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)), and that he had served one prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The judgment is affirmed.

On July 10, 2000, a jury convicted appellant James Matthew McKibben of second degree robbery with personal use of a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code 211, 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced appellant as a "second strike" offender to a total term in state prison of 12 years. It awarded appellant 120 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of 100 days of actual custody credits and 20 days of presentence conduct credits. Appellant's first appeal did not raise any sentencing issues. Court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (No. B145629, July 19, 2001.)

Appellant Mark B. Baer, as Trustee of the Shirley Colby Declaration of Trust Dated August 11, 2005, appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent Charles Colby. The judgment awarded damages to respondent based on the breach of a palimony agreement by the deceased trustor, Shirley Colby. Appellant contends the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm.

Mark Myers appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of murder, three counts of home invasion robbery, attempting to dissuade a witness, and conspiracy to dissuade a witness. The jury also found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed during a robbery and further found that all counts except conspiracy were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang and that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death. Defendant contends (1) the special circumstance finding should be reversed based on failure to instruct on a required element and (2) the gang and weapons findings should be reversed based on improper admission of hearsay evidence and alternatively for ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

Robert Duggan appeals from an order committing him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment after the trial court determined that he was a mentally disordered offender. (MDO; Pen. Code, 2962 et seq.) Appellant contends that the evidence does not support the finding that he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others due to his mental disorder. ( 2962, subd. (c).) Court affirm.

Appellant Nicole P. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights over her daughter, P.K., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She claims the trial court erred in failing to find the parental relationship exception ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) applied. Court affirm.

A.F. (Mother) and M.F., Sr. (Father), challenge an April 23, 2008 dispositional order removing their three teenage children from their custody and placing them in foster care. Because the order is supported by substantial evidence, Court affirm.

The plaintiff sued her employer for discrimination, harassment and other claims. In its answer, the employer asserted a number of affirmative defenses based on the alleged adequacy of its attorneys investigation of the plaintiffs complaints. However, in response to the plaintiffs discovery requests directed at these affirmative defenses, the employer asserted objections on the basis of attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The trial court denied the plaintiffs subsequent motion to compel production of the requested documents, and the plaintiff filed this writ petition. Under the facts of this case, consistent with Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (Wellpoint)(1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110 and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (Kaiser) (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1217, Court conclude that the trial court erred.

J.C. (Mother) appeals from a June 11, 2008 order terminating parental rights to her sons, A.P. (born in Nov. 2002) and J.A.C. (born in Oct. 2003), referred to herein as the Children. Court agree with Mother that there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 19011952, hereinafter ICWA) and reverse the order on that basis.

The parents of T.T. (Child) appeal from a June 12, 2008 order terminating their parental rights. They seek a limited reversal for compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 19011952, hereinafter ICWA) as to three Indian tribes. Court disagree with appellants that notice was defective as to one tribe but agree that notice was not proper with respect to two of the tribes and reverse the order terminating parental rights on that basis.

Raymond Littlejohn appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest on April 25, 2007, to inflicting corporal injury on Teresa Mead (Mead) in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a). On November 8, 2007, imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on three years probation, with a condition that he serve 357 days in county jail, among other things. The trial court imposed a protective order requiring appellant to stay away from Mead, and to avoid all contact, with the exception of exchanges for court ordered family visitation. The trial court ordered appellant to complete a 52 week program of domestic violence counseling. Appellant was also ordered to enroll and participate in a program for mentally ill offenders.

Defendant, Physicians Service doing business as Blue Shield of California, is the claims administrator of Self Insured Schools of California. Plaintiff, Richard White, sued defendant when his claim for a cancer treatment was denied. After defendants summary judgment motion was denied, it filed the present mandate petition. On October 3, 2008, we issued an alternative writ of mandate and no return was filed. Court hold that defendant, as an agent and claims administrator, may not be held liable for the denial of benefits by Self Insured Schools of California. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24; Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 249, 253.)