CA Unpub Decisions

James T. Liang and Pasadena Rose Bowl Motel, LLC (PRB), appeal an order dismissing their action against the County of Los Angeles (County) and others as a discovery sanction. As we discuss in detail below, the record in this case demonstrates a history of aggravated and sustained discovery abuse in spite of repeated and generous extensions granted by the trial court. We find substantial evidence to support the express and implied findings by the trial court of willful discovery abuse and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendants motion for a terminating sanction. Court therefore will affirm the order.

Antonio Luther Reynolds (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to oral copulation with a child under 14 years of age and 10 years younger than defendant (Pen. Code, 288a, subd. (c)(1)), with his admission that he had a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12). The trial court sentenced him to a 12-year prison term, which consisted of a doubled, middle term of six years. Defendant contends that the trial court improperly denied his Marsden motion. (People v.Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) Court affirm the judgment.

At a combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, half-siblings K.B. and K.K. were declared dependents of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)[1]and placed in foster care. The jurisdictional finding was based on the social workers report that was received into evidence even though she was not present or available to testify. Under the facts of this case, the error was not harmless and Court reverse.

Defendant and appellant, Eric L. Washington, appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction for assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon, with prior serious felony conviction and prior prison term findings (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2), 12021, 667, subd. (a) (i), 667.5). Washington was sentenced to state prison for a term of 13 years.
The judgment is affirmed as modified.

Renzo Francisco Eguiluz appeals the judgment (order revoking probation) entered following a plea of no contest to assault with a semiautomatic firearm and his admissions that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense and committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (b), 12022.5 subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).) Court reject Eguiluzs claim of sentencing error and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Gerardo Perez Rosas of second degree murder. On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of Penal Code section 22 and CALCRIM No. 625. Court affirm.

In this dependency proceeding, we affirm the denial of F.T.s (fathers) petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. (All undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Father showed no changed circumstances and there was no evidence that renewing fathers reunification services would serve the best interest of his three children. court also affirm the termination of fathers parental rights. Contrary to fathers argument, there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a permanent plan other than adoption.

The mother in a juvenile dependency case appeals from an order terminating her parental rights and ordering a permanent plan of adoption for her daughter. The mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it concluded the benefits to the child of maintaining the parental relationship with her birth mother did not outweigh the benefits to the child of adoption. Court affirm the order.

As Deanna Brown left a Pasadena pharmacy about 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 2005, she was mugged by three young black men, one of whom grabbed her purse and punched her in the face. Brown said Lockett was one of several young men who had been standing in front of a nearby restaurant. Two days later, Brown was shown a photo line-up and positively identified Darren DeWayne Lockett as the one who grabbed her purse and hit her. Lockett was charged with robbery (Pen. Code, 211), along with an allegation that he committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22). Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The judgment is affirmed.

The mother appeals from an April 21, 2008 dispositional order denying her reunification services. The mother purports to appeal from the order denying reunification services as to three children, E.C., G.C., and M.C. But on the date in question, April 21, 2008, the juvenile court denied reunification services as to two children only, G.C. and M.C., having previously denied such services as to E.C. The order denying the mother reunification services as to E.C. was entered on May 1, 2007. The present notice of appeal was filed on April 21, 2008, more than 60 days after the juvenile court denied the mother reunification services as to E.C. Hence the present appeal is not a timely appeal from the order denying reunification services as to E.C. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.585(f), 8.400(d).) And we have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the order denying reunification services as to E.C. (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696; Adoption of Alexander S. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 857, 864.) The cause is remanded for the sole purpose of complying with the Indian Child Welfare Act as to G.C. and M.C.

The issues in this appeal arise from the implementation by the Department of Health Services (DHS) of a two-plan model that permits Medi-Cal beneficiaries in selected counties to choose between a commercial plan or a governmental plan for the provision of health care services. Health Net of California, Inc. (Health Net) was selected to provide the commercial plan and, in response to disagreements with DHS, filed separate petitions for writ of administrative mandamus, which were heard in 2004 and 2006. Court therefore affirm the denial of the petition for writ of administrative mandamus heard in 2004 insofar as it requests payment of interest on retroactive rate adjustments but reverse insofar as it seeks to allow Health Net to recover prepayment discounts deducted from retroactive adjustments. We affirm the denial of the petition heard in 2006 insofar as it rejects Health Nets request for additional compensation for administrative costs but reverse insofar as it erroneously concludes that the actuarys breach of contract was inconsequential. Court remand to DHS to calculate the rates for rate year 2001-2002 without imposing a mandated freeze based on the state deficit and by applying the trend factors required by contract.

Here we again confront the elusive and slippery idea of just when an interrogation becomes custodial. We must decide whether defendant David Jon Dillion, an arson suspect, was in custody when he confessed to setting five fires in his neighborhood before receiving his Miranda advisements. Court conclude that because the interrogating officers told him before, and many times during, his examination that he was free to go and did not employ otherwise impermissibly coercive techniques, he was not in custody at the time he dribbled out his admissions. Court also conclude that his confession was voluntary. Court affirm.

Defendant committed a commercial burglary. Convicted of that crime and sentenced to five years in state prison, he appeals. He contends that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to disqualify the deputy district attorney who prosecuted him and (2) the imposition of the upper term for burglary violated his rights under Cunningham v. California (2007)549 U.S. 270 [166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham). Court find no merit in defendants contentions, and therefore affirm.

Defendant Matthew Aaron Kilgore appeals from the revocation of his probation under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Pen. Code, 1210.1 (the Act); undesignated section references are to the Penal Code). Defendant contends that the trial court revoked his probation prematurely because the state moved only once to revoke probation and there was only one qualifying noticed hearing. Disagreeing with both contentions, Court affirm.