CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Appellant Victor Manual Ayala went to trial on the following charges: count 1--corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)); count 2--sexual penetration by force ( 289, subd. (a)(1)); count 3--false imprisonment by force ( 236); and count 4--dissuading a witness from reporting a crime ( 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). During jury selection, he unsuccessfully moved for a mistrial, citing People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler motion). The impaneled jury proceeded to return verdicts finding appellant guilty of counts 1, 2, and 3, and finding him not guilty of count 4. The trial court sentenced him to a total term of six years in state prison.
On appeal, appellant contends the prosecutor asserted pretextual reasons for her peremptory challenges of certain trial jurors and the trial court erroneously denied his Wheeler motion; more specifically, he claims the prosecutor discriminatorily exercised her challenges against men. Court affirm. |
|
Defendant Bobby Jean Forrest was charged with the first degree murder of his three-month-old son and with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The firearm possession charge was bifurcated from the murder charge. He was acquitted of murder, and then pleaded guilty to the possession charge and admitted a prior prison term allegation. Defendant received a four-year prison term. He appeals, claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, his counsel was ineffective in failing to allege the search warrant contained a material omission, and the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to the upper term. Court affirm.
|
|
Appellant is serving a 16-month prison term following his guilty plea to a violation of Penal Code section 422. He was awarded 397 days of presentence credit, ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine and a $200 fine pursuant to section 1202.45 that was stayed pending successful completion of parole. The court also ordered him to have no contact with the named victim for five years pursuant to section 646.9, a condition to which appellant objected.
The no contact order is vacated. |
|
Appellant Paul Thomas Perkins was convicted of violating Penal Code[1]section 288, subdivision (a) in 1985. The conviction required mandatory sex offender registration under section 290. Appellant was informed of his duty to register and to notify law enforcement authorities of any change of residence. After appellant was released from prison for the 1985 conviction, he registered with the Kings County Sheriffs Office. In 1992, appellant moved to the State of Missouri without notifying the authorities of his change of address.
Appellant contends that (1) his conviction for failure to notify the authorities of his move out of state cannot stand because the registration statute in effect in 1991 was ambiguous (relying on People v. Franklin (1999) 20 Cal.4th 249 (Franklin)) and (2) the abstract of judgment erroneously lists the date of conviction as January 31, 2007, when the correct date was January 31, 2008. Court affirm the conviction but agree that the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the date of conviction as January 31, 2008. |
|
Prospective buyers brought this action against the sellers of commercial property after the cancellation of escrow. The fundamental sticking point between the two parties was a previously existing leasehold on the property and how rent should be set on that property. Court agree with the trial court that the sellers did not breach the sales agreement and that the buyers cannot recover.
|
|
According to petitioners (plaintiffs) verified petition for writ of mandate, the following issue is presented: Does an order violate the attorney work product doctrine when it compels plaintiffs attorney to evaluate, categorize and label all documents received from third parties to correspond with each of the 36 [Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 et seq.] requests that were the subject of the motion. Because the court did not actually order plaintiffs to do what they claim was ordered, Court deny the petition.
|
|
In this appeal, Sampson W. challenges a determination by the family court that Paul Q. was the father of two-year-old S., notwithstanding Sampson's previous voluntary declaration of paternity (VDP). Sampson contends that the family court erred as a matter of law by weighing the competing presumptions of Family Code section 7611, because the VDP had the force and effect of a judgment that had not been set aside. He further asserts an abuse of discretion in weighing the relevant circumstances under Family Code section 7612. Finally, Sampson contends that the court incorrectly rejected his assertion that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA or the Act) and Family Code section 175 applied in these proceedings.
|
|
Appellant was convicted of numerous crimes for participating in a gang-related robbery of a Newport Beach jewelry store. In his first appeal, we rejected his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the gang related counts and enhancements. However, Court found the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by sentencing him to the upper term on one of the robbery counts. (See generally Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270.) Therefore, Court vacated his sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing.
|
|
Robert Joseph Rodriguez (appellant) was convicted, following a jury trial, of attempted corporal injury on Jane Doe; violating the personal liberty of Jane Doe through violence, menace, fraud, or deceit; misdemeanor child endangerment; and making a criminal threat. On appeal, he contends reversal is required because (1) admission of evidence of uncharged acts of domestic violence, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1109,[1] violated due process; (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of subsequent uncharged acts of domestic violence; and (3) the trial court erred in finding that violations of a no-contact order were instances of domestic violence per se. Court affirm the judgment.
|
|
Defendant Walter Rogelio Hernandez appeals from an order denying his special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.[1] Section 425.16 sets out a procedure for striking complaints in lawsuits that are commonly known as SLAPP suits (strategic lawsuits against public participation). Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike petitions for injunctions filed against him by the City of Richmond (City) under the Workplace Violence Safety Act ( 527.8). Court disagree and affirm.
|
|
Otis Dobine (Dobine), Dan Garcia (Garcia), Belinda Gomez (Gomez), Yvonne Parker (Parker), and Rudy De La Fuente (De La Fuente) (collectively appellants) appeal from a judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles (respondent) entered after the trial court granted respondents motion for summary judgment on appellants claims of race and/or disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.). Court affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
