CA Unpub Decisions

M. R. appeals from an order of the juvenile court committing him to the California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum term of nine years based on offenses found true in a sustained Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. The sustained offenses are possession of a firearm on school grounds and assault with a firearm. (Pen. Code, 626.9, subd. (f)(1), 245, subd. (a)(2).) Appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in committing him to DJJ, and that the commitment violates his federal due process rights, as well as the intent and spirit of several recent amendments to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Court affirm.

In the underlying action, Douglas Brown and Chester Linder obtained a combined $8 million personal injury judgment against Rocco Cimarusti for injuries they sustained in a dune buggy accident caused by Cimarustis negligence. When Amco Insurance Company denied coverage under Cimarustis homeowners policy, Brown, Linder, Cimarusti and Cimarustis limited receiver, Martin Goldberg, joined in bringing this action against Amco for breach of contract. The trial court found Amcos policy covered the accident and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Peter Reed of voluntary manslaughter and found true a gun enhancement allegation. Before trial, defendant moved to dismiss the charges based on alleged outrageous police conduct in connection with the destruction or misplacement of evidence. The trial court denied the motion, but did grant an evidentiary sanction in defendants favor. Defendant now appeals. His primary argument is the court erred in denying the dismissal motion. He also argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for voluntary manslaughter; that the court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged acts; that he was denied a fair trial because the court refused to let him go to the bathroom; and the trial court erred in imposing upper term sentences. Court disagree with these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Jill Dore Kent, individually and as trustee of the Jill Dore Kent living trust, appeals from the judgment ordering the reduction or removal of vegetation from her property and permanently enjoining her from planting vegetation impairing respondents' views. Appellant contends that the trial court applied the Santa Barbara view ordinance improperly because her vegetation did not unreasonably obstruct respondents' views. (See S.B. Ord. No. 5220, S.B. Mun. Code, 22.76.010-22.76.140 (view ordinance).)[1] She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's conclusion that her vegetation constituted "spite fences." Respondents, Patrick Corrigan and Margaret Ingalls (husband and wife), request that we impose sanctions upon appellant for filing a frivolous appeal, and that Court remand this case with directions to the trial court to evaluate respondents' entitlement to post judgment damages. Court affirm the judgment and decline to impose the requested sanctions or to direct the trial court to evaluate respondents' entitlement to post-judgment damages.

Defendant and appellant SAIMA of North America, Inc. (SAIMA) appeals the default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Diamond Auto Body, Inc. (Diamond), as well as the trial court's denial of its motion to set aside entry of default. Court conclude that the trial court erred in denying the latter motion, and so reverse the judgment.

This civil lawsuit originally involved a dispute by a mobilehome dealer (plaintiffs and respondents SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. and Charles W. Redick, collectively SC Homes) against a number of mobilehome parks and dealers. After many years of litigation, four defendants bring this appeal: defendants and appellants Pacific Mobile III, L.P.; Seals, III LLC; the Liebert Corporation; and Norman Scott Liebert. All four defendants are associated with one mobilehome park Parklane Mobile Estates. Hereinafter, Court refer to appellants collectively as the Parklane defendants.

Jimmy Houston appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)).[1] The jury found true the allegations that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death ( 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)); that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1); and that appellant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (e). The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of 50 years to life, comprised of 25 years to life on count 1, which it enhanced by a second 25 years to life term based on the personal gun use finding. The trial court stayed one remaining gun allegations. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Alexander Pesin (Pesin) appeals from the order denying his motion to be relieved from default and default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent United Publishers Corporation (United Publishers). Court affirm.

On August 23, 2007, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Jeffrey Jessie Gutierrez of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1, Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1));[1]attempted criminal threats (count 2, 422, 664);[2]and carrying a dirk or dagger ( 12020, subd. (a)(4)). On October 30, 2007, the trial court sentenced defendant, under the Three Strikes law, to 25 years to life on count 1. The court sentenced defendant to a concurrent 1-year term on count 2 and to a concurrent 25 years to life on count 3. The court also sentenced defendant to consecutive two 5-year terms under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant was given a total of 275 days of credit, calculated as 248 actual days plus 37 good time/work time days. The court found that defendant was not entitled to credits on the indeterminate portion of his sentence. Court will not dismiss the appeal. Court instead order the abstract to be amended to reflect an award of 372 credits.

Appellant Marcos Alfredo Garcia was charged with two counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)) and street terrorism ( 186.22, subd. (a)). It was alleged that appellant committed both assaults with personal use of a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) for the benefit of a street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a firearm and admitted the enhancing allegations. All other charges and allegations were dismissed. The trial court struck the gang enhancement for sentencing purposes and sentenced appellant to five years in state prison, consisting of the low term of two years for the assault and three years for the personal use enhancement. Garcia appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis which he filed seven years after entry of judgment. Court dismiss the appeal.

William J. Nonnette appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, 20001, subd. (a)) and possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). The jury also found true allegations as to both counts that Nonnette had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted him three years probation with terms and conditions including service of 240 days in county jail. Court have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Nonnette's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that appellant J.G. committed first degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. The court found that appellant was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, adjudged appellant to be a ward of the court, and placed him on home probation, with a maximum confinement time of six years. Appellant appeals from the orders sustaining the petition and adjudging him to be a ward of the court, contending that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that he committed a false fire alarm. Court affirm the juvenile court's orders.

Citizens Concerned over Westmont Expansion appeals from the judgment denying its petition for a writ of administrative mandate. Appellant challenges the approval by respondents, Santa Barbara County (County) and the County Board of Supervisors (Board), of a project to expand the campus of Westmont College (Westmont), real party in interest. Appellant contends that a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.)[1] The violation allegedly occurred because (1) the FSEIR used the wrong baseline in determining the project's environmental impacts, and (2) as the "no project" alternative, the FSEIR erroneously selected a 1993 approved Master Plan at buildout instead of the existing setting. Court affirm.

Willie Ray Clark appeals a judgment entered following conviction by the court of one count of rape with a foreign object, and one count of forcible rape. (Pen. Code, 289, subd. (a), 261, subd. (a)(2).) Court have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Clark's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.