CA Unpub Decisions

Trago International, Inc. and its chairman, Christopher Condon (together, Trago International) brought a lawsuit alleging interference with prospective economic advantage and trade libel based on emails sent by defendants Tyrone Montgomery, Douglas Lovison, and George Kosty to Trago Internationals employees, and others. Defendants filed special motions to strike the complaint arguing that Trago Internationals action was a SLAPP suit.[1] The trial court denied the motions. We hold that Trago Internationals complaint was a SLAPP suit subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The complaint arose out of an emailed cease-and-desist letter. That cease and desist letter was a communication preparatory to the commencement of litigation and so it was a communication in furtherance of defendants constitutional right to petition. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (e)(2).)[2] We further hold that as a matter of law, Trago International cannot meet its burden in opposing the anti-SLAPP motion because the emails are privileged communications. (Civ. Code, 47, subd. (b).) Accordingly, Court reverse the orders with directions.

The jury found defendant Regina Peel guilty of six counts of grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a))[1]and three counts of money laundering ( 186.10, subd. (a)). As to seven of the counts, the jury found true an allegation that defendant intentionally took, damaged, and destroyed property of a value exceeding $50,000 within the meaning of section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years in state prison. In this timely appeal, defendant contends the admission of her out of court statements to the police violated her constitutional right against self incrimination. She further contends the concurrent sentences imposed on the convictions of three counts of money laundering should be stayed under section 654. Finally, she argues the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the correct amount of victim restitution. court conclude the abstract of judgment should be corrected, but in all other respects the judgment should be affirmed.

Some four years after filing a malicious prosecution action against an individual and her attorneys, the plaintiffs brought a motion to disqualify the attorney defendants from representing the individual defendant in the joint defense of the action. The trial court continued the hearing on the motion to disqualify in order to enable the defendant attorneys to obtain a declaration from the individual defendant indicating that she was aware of any potential conflict and waived it. The declaration was provided, and the trial court denied the motion. The plaintiffs appeal; Court affirm.

Defendants, Benjamin L. Goudeau and Andrew Johnson, Jr., appeal from their convictions for furnishing cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a).) Mr. Goudeau also appeals from his additional conviction of cocaine base possession for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5.) Mr. Goodeau admitted he had three previous convictions for violating Health & Safety Code section 11350. (Health & Saf. Code, 11370, subds. (a), (c).) Mr. Johnson admitted that he was previously convicted of a serious felony (Pen. Code,[1] 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and served eight prior prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) Mr. Goodeau argues the trial court improperly instructed the jurors with CALCRIM Nos. 220 and 222 and the sentence imposed as to count 3 should have been stayed pursuant to section 654, subdivision (a). Mr. Johnson joins in the instructional error contention. Mr. Johnson further argues the trial court improperly: denied his motions to exclude evidence and new trial; denied his request for an instruction on late discovery; and imposed prior prison term enhancements for case Nos. BA260241 and BA277349. The Attorney General argues that additional fees, penalties, and surcharges are due. Court affirm with modifications and remand to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion regarding the imposition of prior prison term enhancements.

Appellant Jack Justin McClellan (McClellan) appeals from a restraining order and a judgment of permanent injunction. Court affirm.

Theodore William Ray challenges his conviction for two counts of making criminal threats on the ground the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to grant a further continuance to allow Rays counsel to prepare for sentencing. In two petitions for writ of habeas corpus (case No. B209580 filed July 28, 2008, and case No. B210830 filed Sept. 22, 2008), which are considered with this appeal, Ray alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and multiple errors committed by the trial court in sentencing, among other things. Court affirm the judgment and deny both petitions.

An information charged Lancelott Green with (1) attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)),[1] (2) assault with a semiautomatic firearm ( 245, subd. (b)), (3) burglary of an occupied residence ( 459), (4) dissuading a witness ( 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), and (5) making criminal threats ( 422). The information alleged that in the commission of these offenses Green personally used and discharged a firearm ( 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c), 12022.5, subd. (a)) and that he had previously been convicted of two serious or violent felonies. ( 1170.12, subds. (a) (d), 667, subds. (b) (i)). The judgment is affirmed.

A modification decision.

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, Jon Bobier (defendant) pleaded no contest to one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). Defendant admitted having suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony (a strike) under Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years, doubled to four years due to the strike conviction. Defendant appeals on the ground that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence because the search of his person was arbitrary and capricious in violation of his rights under article 1, section 13 of the California Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Appellant Robert Sandoval was convicted of the second degree murder of Christopher Inouye (count 1) and the mayhem of Clair Chang (count 2), with enhancements for firearms discharge and infliction of great bodily injury. He was sentenced to a total of 69 years to life in prison. He contends that the trial court should not have given Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2006-2007) CALCRIM No. 361, which concerns a defendants failure in his testimony to explain or deny evidence against him. Court find no prejudicial error and affirm.

Defendant and appellant Henry Newman appeals from the sentence imposed by the trial court on remand from this court for resentencing under the authority of People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 (Sandoval). As the trial court properly sentenced defendant pursuant to the dictates of Sandoval, Court affirm.

Carla Vanessa Kiss (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following her plea of no contest to second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211.) She was sentenced to a prison term of two years after the trial court offered her an indicated sentence.
The judgment is affirmed.

A juvenile court petition, filed on April 2, 2008, alleged that 17 year old C.S. should be made a ward of the court because he committed a second degree robbery. The judgment is affirmed.

Carl A. Hayes appeals following his plea of no contest to one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years of felony probation under terms and conditions that included serving 180 days in jail. The judgment is affirmed.