CA Unpub Decisions

Ralph Navarro and his law firm, Coudert Brothers (together referred to as "Coudert") appeal the judgment entered following a jury verdict in favor of Darryl Wong and Lyman Garden Apartments, LLC (together referred to as the "Sellers") in the latters' action for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment. Coudert maintains that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's finding of causation. Court agree.

Luis Castro Lopez appeals from his conviction after jury trial of two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder; two counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm; and one count of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. (Pen. Code, 664, 187, 245, subd. (b), 246.)[1] The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life in state prison, with a 20-year section 12022.53, subdivision (c) enhancement, for the attempted murder convictions. It imposed and stayed the sentences for the assault and shooting at an occupied vehicle. Appellant claims that procedural, evidentiary and instructional errors, and several forms of misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. He also raises sentencing errors. Court modify the sentence because of a calculation error and otherwise affirm.

Herman De Los Rios appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on count 1 first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) with personal discharge of a firearm causing death (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court sentenced him to prison for 50 years to life. Appellant claims trial errors occurred. Court affirm the judgment.

San Remo Funding Group, a general partnership, and Frank Campagna, its general partner, appeal a judgment entered in favor of Mako Fund and Philip Markowitz. Court affirm the judgment and award Mako Fund and Philip Markowitz costs on appeal.

Saul Garcia Cuevas appeals from the denial of a motion to withdraw his no contest plea to twenty-seven counts of robbery, one count of attempted robbery, one count of grand theft, and two counts of kidnapping. (Pen. Code, 211, 664/211, 487, subd. (c), & 207.) Court affirm.

Appellants Edmund and Sybil Obendrauf are private homeowners. They remodeled their home themselves, along with the assistance of friends and relatives. After living in the home for eight years, they sold it to respondent Paul Van Patten. They failed to disclose that most of the remodeling was performed by unlicensed workers and did not comply with code requirements. Respondent moved into the home and discovered significant structural defects and code violations. He filed an action against appellants for fraud. Following a bench trial, the court awarded respondent $56,500 in damages. Appellants allege that the trial court used the incorrect measure of damages in calculating respondent's recovery. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendants and appellants Alex Hernandez (Hernandez), Oscar Mejia (Mejia) and Luis DeJesus (DeJesus) (collectively, defendants) of various crimes arising from their participation in an auto theft ring that operated by obtaining a vehicle identification number (VIN) for a target vehicle, then accessing a General Motors database to obtain a key code and make a duplicate key for the vehicle. The vehicles usually were stolen at night from the owners residences. Court affirm.

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) appeals from an order dismissing its complaint against independent contractor Dwayne E. Williams, formerly doing business as D.E. Williams and Associates (Williams), following the sustaining of a general demurrer without leave to amend. HACLA sued Williams and two former HACLA officers, Donald Smith and Lucille Loyce,[1]on numerous causes of action, essentially alleging that they had misappropriated funds from HACLA. Williams demurred to the complaint on the ground that the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. At his request, the trial court took judicial notice of a complaint filed against him and HACLA six years earlier in another action alleging similar acts of wrongdoing. The trial court found that the earlier allegations put HACLA on notice of any potential causes of action it may have had against Williams. Court agree with HACLA that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the meaning and effect of the allegations in the earlier complaint and other pleadings. In the absence of such notice, there was no basis for sustaining the general demurrer. Nevertheless, to the extent HACLA wished to do so, we also agree that it should have been given leave to amend its complaint to assert allegations of adverse domination and fraudulent concealment to toll the limitations periods. Court therefore reverse and remand.

Amanda Leigh Charis appeals the judgment entered after she pled no contest to obtaining services by false pretenses (Pen. Code,[1] 532, subd. (a)), two counts of writing a check with insufficient funds ( 476), and perjury under oath ( 118, subd. (a)). In exchange for her plea, nine other counts were dismissed with a Harveywaiver for restitution.[2] Charis was placed on five years probation, with the condition that she serve 365 days in county jail. She was ordered to pay a total of $78,028.61 in direct victim restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f), and was also ordered to pay a $37.50 fine pursuant to section 1202.5. She contends the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to pay $9,920 of the $34,695 in direct restitution awarded to victim John Maxwell. She also asserts, and the People concede, that the section 1202.5 fine should be stricken. We shall order the judgment modified accordingly. Otherwise, Court affirm.

Donald Nathaniel Jones (appellant) was charged in counts 1 and 4 with attempted forcible rape, a violation of Penal Code[1]sections 664 and 261, subdivision (a)(2), in count 2 with attempted second degree robbery, a violation of sections 664 and 211, in count 3 with assault with intent to commit a felony, a violation of section 220, in count 5 with assault with a deadly weapon, a violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1), and in count 6 with indecent exposure, a violation of section 314, subdivision (1). It was alleged, as to counts 1 and 2, that appellant used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife, a violation of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). It was further alleged, pursuant to sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b) through (i), that appellant had suffered four prior convictions of a serious or violent felony. It was also alleged that appellant had suffered one prior felony conviction within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Appellant John Lopez appeals from judgment after conviction by jury of two counts of performing lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a), counts 1 and 2)[1]and three counts of performing forcible lewd acts on a child (Id., subd. (b)(1), counts 3, 4 and 5). The jury found true an allegation that count five (ibid.) was committed during a residential burglary. ( 667.61, subds. (a) & (d)(4).) The trial court sentenced appellant to 35 years to life in state prison, including 25 years to life for count five pursuant to section 677.61, subds. (a) & (d)).
Appellant contends that the jury's finding that count five count was committed during a residential burglary ( 667.61, subds. (a) & (d)) must be reversed because the jury was not instructed that, if the victim consented to appellant's entry into her home knowing that he intended to engage in lewd acts with her, no burglary occurred. Court affirm.

L.T. (Father) and A.M.T. (Mother) are the parents of A.T. (born January 2006) and T.T. (born September 2007). Father and F.B. are the parents of L.T., Jr. (born March 2004).[1] Father and Mother appeal from the orders declaring the children dependents of the court and placing them in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (Department). Father contends there is insufficient evidence to sustain the petition and no basis for the courts removal of the children from the parents custody. Mother joins in Fathers argument and urges that the courts refusal to place the children with her was error. Court affirm the orders as to Father and reverse the dispositional order as to Mother.

A jury convicted James Nickleberry (appellant) of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). Appellant waived his right to a jury trial on his prior conviction allegations and admitted having suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony (a strike) (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)(d), 667, subds. (b)(i))[1]and seven prison priors ( 667.5, subd. (b)).
The trial court denied appellants motion to strike his prior conviction allegation and sentenced him to prison for the upper term of three years, doubled to six years because of the strike. The trial court struck all of the prior prison term allegations. Appellant appeals on the ground that the imposition of an upper term sentence violated Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham) and appellants federal constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process.

Defendant and appellant Eric Daniel Hinnerichs appeals from the judgment entered following a bench trial that resulted in his conviction for petty theft with a prior. Hinnerichs was sentenced to a prison term of two years. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Court disagree, and affirm.