CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs and defendants are members of two different groups seeking to lead a Native American tribe known as the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe (Tribe). After defendants sent Tribe members a letter stating plaintiffs embezzled money from the Tribe and that a court had ordered plaintiffs to return this money, plaintiffs sued defendants for libel, alleging these statements were false and defamatory. Defendants responded by moving to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16.) The court denied the motion, finding that although defendants met their burden to show the complaint was governed by the anti SLAPP statute, plaintiffs established a probability they would prevail on their libel claim. Defendants appeal, contending the court erred in concluding there was a probability plaintiffs would prevail on their claim. Court reject this contention and affirm the order.

Robert and Gloria Chisley (the Chisleys) appeal from the trial court's order granting the motion to quash service of summons filed by defendant Barona Band of Mission Indians (Barona). As Court will explain, Court conclude that the trial court properly concluded that Barona is protected by tribal sovereign immunity from suit in state court, and accordingly Court affirm.

In this action arising out of the sale of the assets of a corporation, minority shareholder Brian Pye asserted he was entitled to his one-third interest in the corporation, which majority shareholder Daniel O. Robinson had deposited into the trust account of attorney Eduardo Rivera. He further alleged Robinson used his corporation, Robinson Ford Sales Inc. (Robinson Ford), to convert his share of the proceeds. Pye also asserted that Rivera breached his fiduciary duty in assisting Robinson in the conversion. Following a court trial, Pye prevailed on his claims, and the court entered judgment in his favor in the amount of $16,437.70. However, Pye did not request, and the court did not order, that prejudgment interest be included in the judgment as a part of Pye's damages.
Court deny Robinson's motion to dismiss the appeal. Court also conclude the court did not err in refusing to award prejudgment interest, and therefore affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Dwayne W. Houston of failing to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (g)(2), 290.018, subd. (b).)[1] In a separate proceeding, Houston admitted to having a prior strike conviction. ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668.) The trial court sentenced Houston to 32 months in state prison, consisting of the lower term of 16 months for the failing to register conviction doubled for the strike prior conviction. Houston appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence he had a prior sex offense conviction and by allowing the prosecutor to impeach his testimony with a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. Court affirm the judgment.

Hullie Carroll Cohen entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and admitted an allegation under Penal Code section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(11) that he had previously been convicted of selling a controlled substance. Under the plea bargain, the parties stipulated to a five-year prison term. The prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining charge and allegations; the allegations would have exposed Cohen to an additional four years in prison. The court imposed a five year prison term in accordance with the plea bargain. Cohen did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

Abel Morales appeals from an order of the trial court denying his request to obtain clarification of the disposition of two parcels of real property that were the subject of a 2006 default judgment of dissolution of Morales's marriage to Carmen Julia Romero. We conclude that the trial court properly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by Morales, and accordingly Court affirm.

Proceedings for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Michael Imhoff, Commissioner. Petition denied. Stay vacated.
Jamie K. seeks writ review of orders terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] hearing regarding her daughter, Emily K. Court deny the petition.

A modification decision.

A jury convicted defendant of one count of soliciting a minor, who was at least four years younger than him, to use narcotics (Health & Saf. Code, 11353, 11353.1, subd. (a)(3)) and two counts of furnishing methamphetamine to a minor, who was at least four years younger than him (Health & Saf. Code, 11353). In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had suffered a strike prior (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Defendant was sentenced to prison for 18 years and 8 months. He appeals claiming his motion to suppress evidence was improperly denied, the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of another crime and the jury was misinstructed requiring reversal. We reject his contentions and affirm, while directing the trial court to correct an error in the abstract of judgment.

On November 1, 2007, detectives executed a search warrant at a residence occupied by defendant and three other individuals. During the search, detectives located numerous checks in an envelope between the mattresses of the bed in the master bedroom, as well as some in an additional bedroom. Detectives also found one check and several credit cards in other peoples names in the pocket of a pair of pants belonging to defendant. The various checks were purportedly issued by three different businesses and were made out to the various residents of the household, including defendant. Further investigation revealed that the checks were written on closed business accounts and all the checks had the same block-type printing. The search also yielded two firearms, a loaded .20 gauge shotgun with additional rounds, and a loaded .38 revolver. Defendant filed a hand-written notice of appeal pointing out the error in the sentencing. In response to that letter, the minutes were corrected on April 16, 2008, to reflect the term agreed upon by the sentence bargain, that is, a midterm sentence on count 1 of 2 years, plus 1 year each for the two admitted prison priors. The corrected minutes and abstract of judgment were forwarded to the prison.

On September 2, 2006, at approximately 8:00 p.m., in Tulare, Rose Rodriguez was in a car driven by Alejandro Govea when she noticed they were being followed by a dark car. Rodriguez told Govea to stop at a friends house and she drove from there. While Rodriguezs car was stopped, the other car turned around. As Rodriguez drove away, the car got behind them again. Rodriguez turned into an alley and someone from the other car started shooting at Rodriguez and Govea. One shot hit Govea in the skull but did not penetrate it.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant Juan Manuel Vasquez entered a no-contest plea to driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or more and causing injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (b)), leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, 20001, subd. (a)), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, 14601.1, subd. (a)). He also admitted that he caused great bodily injury to the victim, 64-year-old Mary Torres, (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a)), and that he caused bodily injury to more than one victim, Mrs. Torres and her passenger (Veh. Code, 23558). The convictions resulted from a motor vehicle accident in which Vasquez, driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of .22 percent, crossed over the double yellow lines and collided with the vehicle driven by Mrs. Torres. Vasquez ran from the scene. Mrs. Torres suffered a fractured ankle, which rendered her unlikely to walk again. Her passenger suffered injuries to her face and knee. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant and appellant James Michael Sforza entered into a plea bargain after his suppression motion was denied. On appeal, he contends he was detained without reasonable cause; he contends all evidence against him must be suppressed. Court will affirm the judgment.

The first amended information alleged that (i) appellant committed two murders (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)--counts 1, 2)[1]and one attempted murder ( 187, subd. (a), 664--count 3); (ii) appellant committed the two murders by means of lying in wait ( 190.2, subd. (a)(15)); (iii) appellant killed the victims while he was an active participant in a criminal street gang, and the murders were carried out to further the activities of the gang ( 190.2, subd. (a)(22)); (iv) appellant was convicted of multiple murders in the instant proceeding ( 190.2, subd. (a)(3)); (v) a principal in the commission of counts 1 and 2 personally and intentionally discharged a firearm resulting in the death of the victims within the meaning of subdivision (d) and former subdivision (e)(1) of section 12022.53; (vi) a principal in the commission of count 3 personally and intentionally discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury to the victim within the meaning of subdivision (d) and former subdivision (e)(1) of section 12022.53; (vii) a principal in the commission of counts 1-3 personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of subdivision (c) and former subdivision (e)(1) of section 12022.53; and (viii) appellant committed the instant offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members ( 186.22, subd. (b)). Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.