CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Juan Hong brought this action after his complaint under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Gov. Code, 8547 et seq.; Act) was denied by defendant The Regents of the University of California (university) based on acts by defendants Stanley Grant, Nicolaos Alexopoulos, Herbert P. Killackey, and Michael R. Gottfredson. He appeals from a judgment resulting from the sustaining of a demurrer to his cause of action for damages under the Act and denial of his petition for writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated.) Because the complaint showed on its face that the university timely acted on his whistleblowers complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to damages under Government Code section 8547.10 and the court correctly sustained the demurrer. Moreover, administrative mandamus does not lie to review denial of plaintiffs whistleblower complaint because a hearing on that complaint was not required by law. As a result, Court affirm.

Defendant Craig Smith appeals from an order denying a Motion to Set Aside and/or Vacate Judgment in the Nature of Coram Nobis. The motion sought to set aside a judgment entered against him in 2001 on the grounds that his plea was based on misinformation. The trial court denied the motion. This timely appeal ensued. On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. Court notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant has submitted a supplemental brief which we now consider pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal 4th 106. Finding no arguable issue on appeal Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Robert William LaBouve appeals from a judgment entered after pleading guilty to one felony count of grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, count 1), one felony count of petty theft with a prior conviction ( 666, count 2) and one count of commercial burglary ( 459, count 3). After initially pleading not guilty to the charges, LaBouve subsequently accepted a plea bargain in which he agreed to, in exchange for a maximum sentence of 32 months, plead guilty to all three counts, as well as admit the special allegations that he had one prior felony strike conviction and three prison priors. ( 667, subds. (b)(i), 1170.12, 667.5 subd. (b).) At sentencing, the trial court denied LaBouves Romero[2] motion and sentenced him to a term of 32 months in prison on count 1 to run concurrently with a 32 month sentence on count 3. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, Court have reviewed the whole record and have concluded there is no arguable issue on appeal. Court affirm the judgment, but note that LaBouve may proceed by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus on his claims.

Robert Canfield (Canfield) appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of first degree burglary and first degree robbery (Pen. Code, 459, 211). He contends: (1) his due process rights were violated when the court instructed the jury, in accordance with CALCRIM No. 315, that it could consider the victims subjective certainty in identifying Canfield as a factor in evaluating the reliability of the identification; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish that Canfield was the perpetrator; and (3) the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. His first argument has been repeatedly rejected by California appellate courts, and his other two arguments are meritless as well. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant pled no contest to all counts of a five-count information alleging second degree robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm; he also admitted the charged enhancements, six prior felony convictions, and three prior serious felony convictions. He was sentenced to a state prison term of 55 years to life. He appeals from the sentence imposed, claiming that (1) a prior federal conviction could not properly be used as a prior strike, (2) the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike one of his prior strikes, and (3) it also improperly used the amended version of Penal Code section 1170 in sentencing him. Court reject all these arguments and affirm the judgment below.

Following a bench trial, the trial court filed a Statement of Decision (SOD) and entered judgment quieting title in favor of plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent Conchita Dieden with respect to her property on Monterey Avenue in Berkeley (Berkeley property). Defendant, cross-complainant and appellant Stanley F. Schmidt (Schmidt) appeals the trial courts judgment that he owns no lien or interest in Diedens property. Court reverse.

Appellant John M. Fotinos appeals his felony conviction for grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)). Court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. Counsel informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but appellant declined to do so.

A jury found defendant Jimmy Kokkeby guilty of possession of a controlled substance, Fentanyl. Defendant contends the verdict was error because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he knew that he was in possession of a controlled substance. As discussed below, Court find no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant William Duc Vo entered a plea of no contest to evading a peace officer causing injury (count 1, Veh. Code, 2800.3) and unlawful taking of a vehicle (count 3, Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), in exchange for an indicated sentence of three years eight months and dismissal of remaining charges. Consistent with the negotiated disposition, appellant was sentenced to a low term of three years on count 1 and a consecutive eight months (one-third the midterm) on count 2. The remaining charges were dismissed.
Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. His plea was validly entered after full advisement of his rights and the consequences of his plea. There was no abuse of discretion in denying his motion to withdraw plea. Appellant was sentenced to the agreed-upon term and there was no sentencing error. Judgment affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment following his plea of no contest and imposition of sentence. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Defendant has been advised by counsel that he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to this courts attention. He has not done so.Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

Petitioner Rachel B. seeks an extraordinary writ to overturn the juvenile courts decision to terminate reunification services that were offered to her pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, and to set a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Petitioner also seeks a temporary stay pending our decision to grant or deny her petition for extraordinary writ. Court deny both the petition and the request for a stay for the reasons set forth below.

Valerie Ann Cooper asks this court to vacate a superior court order dismissing her action for dissolution of marriage. Court conclude the court abused its discretion when it did not allow Cooper to amend her pleading. Court direct the superior court to vacate its dismissal order.

Named plaintiffs, as the representatives of unnamed plaintiffs, appeal from judgments of dismissal of some defendants from a cause of action for unfair competition, after demurrers were sustained. Appellants standing to prosecute the action and this appeal on behalf of unnamed plaintiffs was eliminated by Proposition 64. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, 17203, 17204; Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyns, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 232 (CDR ) [section 17203, as amended, withdraws the standing of persons who have not been harmed to represent those who have].) Because appellants had standing when the action was commenced and when the appeal was filed, we must vacate the judgments of dismissal, and remand to the Superior Court to give appellants an opportunity to move to amend their complaint to add a qualified plaintiff. (See Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242 243 (Branick).)

Appellant Maria T. Watanabe filed an action against California Physicians Service dba Blue Shield of California (Blue Shield). The jury returned a verdict that Blue Shield had breached its contract with appellant and awarded $65 in damages. The jury, however, found that Blue Shield had not breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing under its contract with appellant. A judgment conforming to the verdict was entered and this appeal followed. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.