CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Defendant and an accomplice forced their way into a home and, for approximately three hours, held two victims hostage as they ransacked the house. During this time, they bound and repeatedly struck one of the victims in the head with the butt of a gun, before taking both victims cars as they left. Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery within a residence (Pen. Code, 211/212.5), one count of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)), two counts of unlawful taking of vehicles (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), and one count of possessing methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a).) He appeals, challenging (1) the admissibility testimony about lab reports by an expert who did not personally perform the lab test; (2) consecutive sentences for the robbery and the aggravated assault of one of the victims; and (3) imposition of the upper term sentence based on aggravating facts not admitted by the defendant nor found true by the jury. (Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856].) Court find no error and affirm.
|
|
After the court denied the suppression motion filed by defendant Guillermo Guzman Ramirez, a jury found him guilty of possessing methamphetamine for sale. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on five years probation. Defendant appeals, contending the court erred in denying his suppression motion. Disagreeing, Court affirm the judgment.
|
|
In this pro se judgment roll appeal, appellant Michael G. Coltharp contends that, during the court trial of this matter, the court erred in allowing certain documents into evidence, and erred in finding that respondent Chase Bank USA, N.A. (the Bank) plaintiff in the underlying action had proved its case. Because Coltharp has failed to show the trial court erred, Court shall affirm the judgment.
|
|
On November 15, 2007,[1]defendant Vernell Fuzzy Shaw pled guilty to dissuading a witness from testifying. (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (a)(2).)[2] Pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, he was sentenced to the low term of 16 months in state prison and the standard fines. Defendants request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. ( 1237.5.) The sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings to correct the sentencing errors noted in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
|
|
Defendant Joshua Neil Smedley and his girlfriend of five years had been fighting for a few days about his methamphetamine use. On May 3, 2008, the fighting escalated and he hit her twice. The sheriffs department was called. They asked defendant what happened and he told them he and his girlfriend had been arguing. When the deputies were interviewing defendants sister, they heard the girlfriend scream for help. The deputy saw defendant walking towards the girlfriend and ordered him to stop. When defendant did not stop, the deputy took hold of defendants arm. Defendant shook off the deputy and continued after his girlfriend. When he caught her, he pushed her to the ground and began punching her in the head. The deputies yelled at him to stop, pepper sprayed him and hit him with a baton, but defendant kept hitting her. Ultimately, he was felled by a Taser dart to the back. The judgment is affirmed.
|
|
C. C., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying her petition for modification and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 388, 395.) Appellant contends the court erred in denying her petition for modification. Court affirm.
|
|
In its order granting dissolution of the marriage between Damon Williams (husband) and Yolanda Williams (wife), the trial court reserved the issue of Epstein credits for separate property contributions made by husband toward community obligations. (In re Marriage of Epstein (1979) 24 Cal.3d 76, 84-85 (Epstein), superseded on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Walrath (1998) 17 Cal.4th 907, 914.) The court rejected husbands subsequent request for reimbursement of separate property expenditures and awarded wife $4000 in attorney fees. Husband appeals from an order that denied reconsideration of the Epstein credits issue and awarded wife an additional $1000 in attorney fees and costs. Construing the appeal as having been taken from the underlying order rather than the motion for reconsideration, Court affirm.
|
|
A jury convicted John William McQueen (appellant) of transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)[1]), ecstasy ( 11379, subd. (a)), and marijuana ( 11360, subd. (a)) and of possession of marijuana ( 11357, subd. (a)). Appellant challenges his conviction on three grounds. He contends the trial court: (1) erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) abused its discretion in admitting his prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes; and (3) erred in denying his request for Proposition 36 treatment. Court affirm.
|
|
Burton Roy Metzger and Darrick Omar Hernandez appeal from judgments entered after they were convicted by separate juries in a unitary trial. Fifteen year old Hernandez was convicted of the first degree premeditated murder of his mother (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 189)[1]with special findings that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim and personally used a deadly weapon. ( 1203.075; 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Metzger was convicted of second degree murder ( 187, subd. (a), 189) as an aider and abettor. He was also an accessory after the fact. ( 32.) The trial court sentenced Hernandez to 25 years to life, plus one year on the weapon enhancement. Metzger was sentenced to 15 years to life state prison.
We affirm the judgment as to Hernandez. With respect to Metzger, we vacate the accessory conviction because liability as an accessory is subsumed in the conviction for aiding and abetting. (People v. Nguyen (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 518, 536-537; People v. Francis (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 241, 251-253.) We conclude that Metzger's conviction for second degree murder as an aider and abettor is supported by substantial evidence and affirm the judgment as modified. Metzger's sentence remains the same. |
|
We last considered this contract dispute between a pipeline and a railroad in 2003 when we reversed summary adjudication granted in favor of the Railroad. (Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. SFPP (Dec. 22, 2003) B160234 [nonpub. opn.] (Union Pacific I).) Court concluded that the phrase [i]n the event the Railroad shall at any time deem it necessary . . . . was ambiguous. Court held that whether that phrase should be interpreted broadly or narrowly was a question of material fact. (Union Pacific I, supra, B160234.)
|
|
On March 9, 2006, the Los Angeles District Attorney filed a petition alleging that A.H. (appellant) was a minor who came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1]in that he resisted an executive officer (Count 1, Pen. Code 69, a felony) he committed battery by gassing (Count 2, Pen. Code 243.9, subd. (a), a felony) and vandalism causing over $400 in damages (Count 3, Pen. Code 594, subd. (a), a felony.) The petition further alleged that each offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members (Pen. Code 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).)
|
|
Saul Deleon, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, brought this action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, 2698 (PAGA)) against AirTouch Cellular, doing business as Verizon Wireless (hereinafter Verizon Wireless), alleging various Labor Code violations. The trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer brought by Verizon Wireless ruling that Deleons lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata to the extent Deleon seeks relief on behalf of class members who settled a prior class action against Verizon Wireless that adjudicated the same claims. While we agree with the trial courts analysis, Court conclude that it abused its discretion in denying Deleon leave to amend to state claims that accrued after the date of the earlier action. Accordingly, Court reverse.
|
|
Harald Heggnes and Maria Heggnes appeal from the judgment entered in their legal malpractice action after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Law Offices of Robert L. Risley and attorneys Robert L. Risley, Frank H. Whitehead, III and Mary Lolonis (collectively Attorney Defendants). Court reverse.
|
|
The parties to this appeal entered two contracts, each containing a forum selection clause. The clause states that the contracts may be enforced by an arbitration panel, in superior court or in federal court, so long as the forum is located in Southern California. Plaintiff instituted litigation in superior court. Sixteen months later, defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the petition because the forum clause permits disputes to be resolved in any of the three specified fora, and plaintiff chose litigation, not arbitration. Court affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
