CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant George V. Weidman appeals from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs Katherine Walters and William Weidman based upon breach of an oral contract. George contends the jury committed misconduct in reaching a compromise verdict, the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence, and it was error to admit Katherines testimony regarding conversations that took place pursuant to a mediation. Court affirm.

Appellant Travon Harris appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of attempting to dissuade a victim or witness. Appellant contends insufficient evidence supports his conviction with respect to one victim and the trial court erroneously admitted evidence that the victims relocated. Court affirm.

The jury convicted defendant Michael Phillip Torres of the attempted murder of David Mendoza in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a),[1]finding the attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. The jury found not true the allegations that he personally used a firearm in committing the offense ( 12022.53). Defendant was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)); making criminal threats upon Erin Sutton ( 442); illegal street gang activity ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)); attempting to dissuade witness Joe Smokey Neria ( 136.1, subd. (a)(2)); intimidation of witness Neria ( 137, subd. (b)); and intimidation of witness Sutton ( 137, subd. (b)). The jury found that all of the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the prior conviction allegations. The trial court found defendant had two prior convictions under the three strikes law and had served three prior prison terms.

Plaintiff and appellant Tyrone C. Carpenter (plaintiff) appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Jack In the Box Corporation (defendant) in plaintiffs action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, employment discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, 12940 et seq. (FEHA)), and breach of an express or implied contract. Court affirm the judgment.

After five years as a ward of the juvenile court, R.C. was found to be in violation of his probation, and he was committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). He contends (1) he was statutorily ineligible for a DJJ commitment, (2) the court abused its discretion in committing him, (3) the court failed to exercise discretion in setting the maximum term of physical confinement, and (4) the court erred by failing to find that he was a special education student and transferring his current Individual Education Plan (IEP) to the DJJ. The last two contentions have merit; Court affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.

Appellants J.F. (father) and D.L. (minor) (born June 2007) appeal from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over minor pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and removing minor from fathers custody. Court affirm the orders.

The jury convicted defendant Deion Haggerty of nine offenses arising out of a shooting incident on January 16, 2006: the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murders of Nathaniel Gutierrez, Royce Hollingworth, and Ineatha Allen in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a) (counts 1-3);[1]assault by machine gun or assault weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(3)) against the same three victims (counts 4-6); possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 7); and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle and an inhabited dwelling house ( 246) (counts 8 and 9). The jury found true the special allegations of personal firearm use by a principal ( 12022.53, subds. (c) & (e)(1)) as to the three attempted murder counts;[2]it also found true the special gang allegations ( 186.22, subd. (b)) as to all nine counts. The trial court imposed three consecutive life terms for the attempted murders, adding 20-year terms for the firearm enhancements as to those offenses. It stayed imposition of middle term sentences on the three assault convictions pursuant to section 654. Consecutive terms of 8 months, 20 months, and 20 months were imposed for the remaining convictions. The court struck punishments as to the gang findings on all counts in the interest of justice ( 186.22, subd. (g)).

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant Robert Cuevas Moran, Jr. pled no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).) The indicated sentence was three years probation, and appellant was specifically advised that he would have to pay full restitution to the victim. The victims jaw was fractured when punched in the jaw by appellant during a fight at a baseball game between rival local teams. Appellant was admitted to probation consistent with the negotiated plea.Judgment affirmed.

On September 23, 2008, the Mendocino County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, entered an order in this proceeding that denied further reunification services for K.D. (Mother) and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for C.S. and R.S. (the minors). Mother challenges this order by petition for extraordinary writ, claiming the juvenile court erred in making certain findings. As discussed below, Court conclude there is substantial evidence to support the contested findings, and deny Mothers petition on the merits.

Ronald Anthony Loaiza and Hercules Bernardo Reyes appeal from judgments entered following a jury trial in which they were convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon. They raise numerous contentions, including sufficiency of the evidence, and evidentiary, instructional, and sentencing error. Court reverse the gang enhancement findings for insufficiency of evidence and remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm.

A modification decision.

Defendant Addison Liner appeals from the judgment following his conviction for possession of cocaine base. Court affirm the conviction, vacate the prison sentence and remand the cause for resentencing.

R.G., a minor, appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) entered following a determination that he committed the offense of criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422). The court ordered him placed home on probation. Court affirm the order of wardship.

On May 20, 2007, defendant, Ray Bryan Macoy, pled no contest to the crime of voluntary manslaughter and admitted the truth of a special allegation. His post-plea motion to reduce his sentence was denied. We noted defendant has failed to secure a probable cause certificate. Court have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) As a result, Court issued an order to show cause concerning possible dismissal of the appeal and permitted the parties to orally argue the dismissal issue.