CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Elbert Bernard Stewart was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon with the personal infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1);[1]12022.7, subd. (a)), attempting to dissuade a witness ( 664/136.1, subd. (a)(2)), and soliciting the commission of a crime ( 653f, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to 14 years in prison. He appeals, contending that his right to due process was violated when he was shackled during trial, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an uncharged assault, and the cumulative effect of these errors requires reversal. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant, Juan Jose Gonzales, appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for attempted voluntary manslaughter, making criminal threats, dissuading a witness, corporal injury to a spouse, child abuse (2 counts), possession of a firearm by a felon and aggravated assault (3 counts), with firearm use findings (Pen. Code, 664/192, 422, 136.1, 273.5, 12021, 245, 12022.5). Sentenced to state prison for 15 years, Galan claims there was trial error. The judgment is affirmed.

After 13 days of trial, a jury returned a special verdict with all findings adverse to Fu Wang, and in favor of Charles R. Drew University of Medicine (University) and the County of Los Angeles (County; collectively defendants), on Wangs claims of discrimination based on national origin, race, age, or disability, wrongful termination, and retaliation. Wang appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial, in which he asserted that insufficient evidence supported the jurys verdict, and that the special verdict was inconsistent. Wang also challenges the trial courts order summarily adjudicating his contract claims. Court affirm the judgment.

Thomas Christopher Acuna appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial at which he was found guilty of violating Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a) (driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage) and Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b) (driving with a .08 percent or more blood alcohol level). He contends there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. He argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his pretrial Marsden motion to dismiss counsel, and that he was deprived of a post-trial Marsden hearing to which he was entitled. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) He asserts that the trial court abused its discretion at sentencing when it denied his request to dismiss a prior strike in the interests of justice. He asks that we review the sealed Pitchess record to determine whether discoverable information was improperly withheld. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).) Finally, he asks that we order the abstract of judgment and minute order to be corrected in order to reflect the sentence imposed orally by the trial court. The judgment is affirmed.

Thomas McGrath appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted respondents[1]motion for nonsuit following appellants opening statement.[2] (See Code Civ. Proc., 581c.) Appellant, a truck driver, parked his truck and alighted in the left turn lane of the roadway while waiting to deliver quarry materials to a cement batch plant owned by Lebata and operated by Associated. Ark Leasings truck rolled over appellants foot while he stood in conversation with other drivers in the middle of the street. Appellant contends the trial court erred in ruling respondents owed appellant no duty as a matter of law upon the briefs and record presented. Court affirm.

Defendants and appellants, Joshua Derek Roberts and Derek Daron Cooper, appeal from the judgments entered following their convictions, by jury trial, for first degree murder with firearm and criminal street gang enhancements (Pen. Code, 187, 12022.53, 186.22). Defendants were sentenced to state prison for terms of 50 years to life.
The judgments are affirmed.

Faith Eileen Dean appeals her conviction for second degree robbery. She contends there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. She argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a continuance to investigate and produce a potential witness. She also argues the trial court committed reversible error by excluding her expert witness without giving her an opportunity to change her plea so as to make the experts proposed testimony admissible, and that her counsel was ineffective for not moving to change her plea. She contends that two jury instructions, CALCRIM No. 300 and CALCRIM No. 1600, were not correct statements of law. She further contends that a third jury instruction, CALCRIM No. 361, was not warranted by the evidence in this case. Finally, she asks that Court reverse based on the cumulative prejudicial effect of these errors combined, even if no single error requires reversal. Court find no prejudicial error, and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Charlotte Spadaro appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of respondents Bark Avenue, LLC and Jay Blumberg. Respondents have moved for terminating and monetary sanctions against appellant for pursuing a frivolous appeal. Court affirm the judgment and deny the motion for sanctions.

Playhut, Inc. (Playhut) sells toys to retail outlets. United Development Enterprises (UDE) manufactures toys for Playhut. Playhut sued UDE for breach of contract, claiming that UDE failed to perform several agreements to manufacture toys and, as result, Playhut suffered damages in excess of $3.6 million. UDE cross-complained for breach of contract, claiming that Playhut had failed to pay invoices of over $800,000. The matter was tried to the court. On Playhuts complaint, the trial court found no liability and entered judgment in favor of UDE. On UDEs cross-complaint, the trial court found that UDE had only proved unpaid invoices of $58,000 and entered judgment for that amount plus costs. Both parties appeal. Court affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Appellants S.S. (Mother) and Albert F. appeal from the juvenile courts jurisdictional finding that their daughters fall within dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j).[1] In addition, Albert appeals the courts disposition, which denied him reunification services and granted absolute discretion over visitation to DCFS. We affirm the jurisdictional order and affirm the portion of the dispositional order that dealt with reunification services. With respect to the portion of the disposition order that dealt with visitation, Court dismiss the appeal as moot.

Defendant James Doherty appeals from the judgment entered following the jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).) He contends the trial court erred by: (1) failing to appropriately answer a jury question during deliberations; (2) instructing the jury on the theory of torture murder; and (3) instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.62. Court affirm.

The question presented in this case is whether a health care service plan complete[s] medical underwriting under Health and Safety Code section 1389.3 (section 1389.3) if, before issuing a plan contract, it does not attempt to check the accuracy of an application that itself does not raise any questions regarding the applicants medical condition.[1] In Hailey v. California Physicians Service (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 452 (Hailey), the Fourth District, Division Three examined a health care service plans duty under section 1389.3, and concluded that the plan must make reasonable efforts to ensure the subscribers application was accurate and complete as part of the precontract underwriting process. (Id. at p. 459.) Court agree with the Hailey courts thoughtful and careful analysis. Accordingly, Court reverse the summary judgment in this case.

One day in August 2006, a female police officer working undercover on the street asked appellant if he knew where to buy drugs. Appellant said yes, took $20 from her, and began searching in the neighborhood for a drug dealer. After finding a dealer, he collected another $10 from the officer, purchased between $15 and $20 of cocaine base from the dealer and kept the remaining money. Although he gave the officer most of the cocaine, he kept some for himself. After completing the sale, he was arrested and charged with sale of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a).) At trial, appellant argued the officer had entrapped him by feigning sexual interest and the court instructed the jury on the elements of entrapment. The jury nonetheless convicted appellant as charged.

Defendant and appellant, Gerardo Huerta, appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to possession of cocaine for sale and false compartment activity, with arming and drug quantity enhancements (Health & Saf. Code, 11351, 11366.8, 11370.4; Pen. Code, 12022). Huerta was sentenced to state prison for a term of 11 years. The judgment is affirmed.