CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant and appellant Clement Isadore Leach, Jr., guilty of 15 counts of second degree burglary. (Pen. Code,[1] 459.) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegation that defendant had suffered a violent felony and strike based on a Louisiana conviction for armed robbery. The court sentenced him to a total prison term of 22 years 8 months, which included the midterm on count 1, the principal term. Defendant appealed to this court, and in our opinion in People v. Clement Isadore Leach, Jr., case No. E042178, we reversed the true finding on the prior strike allegation and remanded the matter for retrial on that allegation and/or for resentencing. On remand, upon the Peoples motion, the court granted a request to dismiss the prior strike. The court then resentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 12 years 4 months. The sentence included the upper term on count 1. Defendant filed a second appeal after the resentencing hearing. Court affirm.

N.S. (minor) appeals from an order adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court and committing him to juvenile hall. Minors counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, arguing no issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. Court have now conducted that review and Court affirm the judgment.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition thereto, which we conclude adequately address the issues raised by the petition. Court have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties. Costs are awarded to petitioner.

Appellants Jerry Neves, Jr., and Reynaldo Salcido Rubio were tried as codefendants and convicted of multiple offenses. They each raise several challenges to their convictions. Court will affirm the judgments.

Appellant, Benito Trevino Castillo, was charged in an information with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a), count one) and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a), count two). At the conclusion of a jury trial on August 30, 2007, the jury found appellant guilty of count one but failed to reach a verdict on count two. On September 5, 2007, the trial court granted the prosecutors motion to dismiss count two and placed appellant on probation for three years pursuant to Proposition 36. Appellant contends the trial court improperly delegated its authority to select a particular drug treatment program and to determine when it is successfully completed to the probation department. Appellant contends the trial courts order that appellant not associate with anyone on probation or parole was vague and overbroad. Appellant finally argues that the trial court failed to obtain a proper waiver from appellant that as a term of probation appellant would not be permitted time in a treatment facility as custody credit.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from orders entered at a dispositional hearing denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her four children. Court grant the petition.

A modification decision.

Michael Cohn appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (Corinthian), and Angels Baseball LP (the Angels). He contends the Angels Mothers Day tote bag giveaway violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Civ. Code, 51, 52; hereafter the Unruh Act.) Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Abraham Albert Hernandez appeals from a judgment after a trial court convicted him of special circumstance first degree murder, second degree murder, and street terrorism. The court found true allegations Hernandez committed multiple murders and he personally used a firearm. On appeal, Hernandez maintains: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction because the evidence failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator and failed to prove he specifically intended the murder to benefit a gang; (2) imposition of the consecutive terms of 25 years to life pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d), should not apply to him; (3) the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the applicable sentence for the first degree murder conviction; and (4) he is entitled to five days of additional custody credits. Court affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Seacliff Packaging, Inc. (Seacliff) sued its former employee, Larina Lee (Lee), for fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty based on her performance as its sales representative. Seacliff claimed Lee sold competing products through her own company to Seacliffs customers and made wrongful profits from sales on behalf of Seacliff by overstating the cost of goods and pocketing the difference. Lee cross-complained against Seacliff for failure to pay her commissions. The jury found in favor of Seacliff and awarded it compensatory damages of $744,000 and punitive damages of $125,000. Lee appeals, claiming there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment, the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, her motion for new trial should have been granted on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and excessive punitive damages, and she should have recovered unpaid commissions on her cross-complaint. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Mari-Lynne Earls challenges four trial court orders in this marital dissolution action, including (1) the March 25, 2007 order denying her motion to set aside the August 14, 2003 dismissal order and the March 21, 2003 stipulated judgment; (2) the March 25, 2007 child support order; (3) the June 12, 2007 order awarding respondent Carlton G. Amdahl discovery-related attorney fees of $60,000 pursuant to Family Code section 271 and (4) the June 12, 2007 order awarding Amdahl attorney fees of $225,000 pursuant to section 271, due to Earls unwillingness to make or consider reasonable settlement offers to resolve the litigation.
For the reasons stated below, we conclude that none of Earls claims of trial court error have merit and therefore Corut affirm all four orders.

Defendant Oscar Abuslin challenges the trial courts order under Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972[1] extending for one year his involuntary commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). He contends that he was erroneously deprived of a jury trial and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the order as to the element of his substantial danger to others by reason of his severe mental disorder. ( 2972, subd. (c).) Because the order extending defendants commitment expired on September 29, 2008, and because we are not convinced that the appeal presents issues of important public interest or that are likely to recur and yet evade review, we conclude that the appeal is now moot and dismiss it. The appeal is dismissed as moot.

Respondent Patrick Marshall, an attorney, defended appellant Willie Riley in an unlawful detainer action that included a dispute over Rileys ownership of the house from which he was being evicted by his former girlfriend, Deborah McDonald. McDonald held title to the house on which Riley had paid the down payment and some mortgage payments. Shortly before the trial of the unlawful detainer action was to begin, Riley signed a settlement agreement resolving the unlawful detainer action and the home ownership dispute. After Riley failed to make the payments to McDonald that were required by the settlement agreement, Riley lost his claimed ownership interest in the house during further legal proceedings. On appeal, Riley argues that his evidence established Marshalls professional negligence and the trial court erred in its ruling on causation. For reasons that Court explain, Court determine that triable questions of material fact exist and therefore Court reverse the judgment.