CA Unpub Decisions

Bimla Madhaw settled her workers compensation case with her employer, Huhtamaki Americas, Inc. (Huhtamaki), by agreeing to a lump sum payment of $35,000, from which would be deducted $10,260 subject to proof for permanent disability advances [paid to Madhaw] through 3/10/05, and any further permanent disability advances made after the date set forth above, i.e., after March 10, 2005. Upon reconsideration, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) agreed with the WCJ. We issued a writ of review and now shall annul the Boards decision.

Columbus White was convicted of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, making a criminal threat, pimping and pimping a minor over 16 years of age. White was sentenced to a prison term of six years. He appeals, arguing the trial court erred in failing to instruct concerning the requirement of jury unanimity with regard to the making of a criminal threat charged and erred in imposing the six-year term.

A jury convicted Wyatt Ely Holcomb of carjacking (Pen. Code,[1] 215, subd. (a)) and robbery ( 211). Holcomb thereafter admitted allegations that he had suffered two prior convictions constituting strikes under the "Three Strikes" Law ( 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12), two serious felony prior convictions ( 667, subd. (a)(1)), and two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The court sentenced him to an 11-year prison term. On appeal, Holcomb contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support a finding he aided and abetted the commission of the carjacking and robbery; (2) the trial court erred in denying his request for a mistrial following the improper disclosure of his parole status; and (3) the trial court should have stayed his concurrent four-year robbery sentence under section 654. Holcomb also asks us to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the trial court struck rather than stayed one of his prior prison term enhancements. The People concede the abstract of judgment should be modified as Holcomb requests. They also assert the trial court erred by neither striking nor imposing the second prior prison term enhancement and by failing to impose a consecutive five-year enhancement for Holcomb's second prior serious felony conviction. Court agree the sentence must be reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to either impose or strike the second prior prison term enhancement and that the abstract of judgment should thereafter be modified to correctly reflect the trial court's actions as to Holcomb's two prison term enhancements. Court reject the remaining contentions of sentencing error and otherwise affirm the judgment.

A judge found M.E. committed arson on school property (Pen. Code, 451, subd. (d)) and destroyed school property (playground structure) worth at least $400. (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a), (b)(1).) The court ordered a psychological evaluation of M.E. and scheduled a disposition hearing. At the disposition hearing, the court adjudged M.E. to be a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placed him under the supervision of the probation department. The court permitted him to live with his parents under a curfew. M.E. appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding he was the person who set the fire to and destroyed the playground structure. Court affirm the judgment.

Gerald Dean Keeler appeals an order revoking probation on the grounds the trial court abused its discretion by (1) denying his request for a continuance to obtain private counsel and (2) refusing to strike one or more of his prior strike convictions. Court affirm.

Deante F., a former ward of the juvenile court, moved under Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 781 to seal the juvenile records in this case, which involves an attempted robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211) and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). The juvenile court denied the motion on the grounds that section 781 precludes sealing a person's juvenile record in any case in which the person has been found to have committed an offense listed in section 707, subdivision (b). Deante appeals the denial of his section 781 motion.

A jury convicted Duane Lamar Young of one count of selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and one count of possession of cocaine base with the intent to sell (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5). In a separate proceeding, Young admitted he had suffered two prior drug sale convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced Young to seven years in prison.

This writ proceeding arises from an order disqualifying a law firm from representing its clients, petitioners Center Associates, L.P., et al. (petitioners or Center), due to a finding of impermissible successive representation of an opponent of Center. Center has sued the owners of 48 units in a condominium project and their homeowners' association, seeking declaratory relief to interpret the governing documents affecting the owners' property. Center is planning to develop commercial property that it owns adjacent to the residential condominium project, including Center's Lot 4, on which the owners have various access and easement rights for parking from their lots 5 and 6.
Let a writ of mandate issue ordering the superior court to vacate its order granting the motion to disqualify counsel and to enter a new order denying the motion. Petitioners' request to order transfer of the case to a new trial judge is denied. Each party shall pay its own costs in this writ proceeding.

Defendant Bobby Enrique Patron (defendant) appeals as error the trial courts failure to stay the sentence on one of his felony convictions pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code section 654 and its imposition of consecutive sentences on the same two convictions. court will remand the matter with directions for the trial court to correct three minor sentencing errors and will otherwise affirm the judgment.

Appellant G.S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile courts orders terminating her parental rights to her daughters A.R. and G.R. at a hearing held on April 29, 2008, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26.[1] Mother argues: 1) the juvenile court erred in finding the children adoptable because they have a strong bond with their three siblings; and 2) the court erred when it found that the parental benefit exception to adoption does not apply. The childrens father, E.R., (father) joins in this appeal, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5). As discussed below, Court reject these arguments and affirm the juvenile courts orders.

Appellant Hispanic Bakersfield, LLC (HB) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Valley Public Television, Inc. (VPT) after a bench trial. HB contends that the trial court erred by determining that (1) its promissory note to VPT was payable on demand instead of payable on February 12, 2007, and (2) VPT owed HB no additional compensation for VPTs last seven months of use of KAZB Channel 19 (Channel 19).
Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.

A jury convicted appellant Russell Lee Hedge of false imprisonment (Pen. Code, 236) and misdemeanor battery on a person with whom he had a dating relationship (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1)). The court placed appellant on five years probation, with various terms and conditions, including that he serve eight months in county jail. On appeal, appellant contends the court erred in admitting evidence he committed an act of domestic violence that was not charged in the instant case. Court affirm.

Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her five children. Court affirm.

David Dykes petitions for a writ of review from a July 2, 2008, decision of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lowering his permanent disability award by instructing the use of an apportionment formula more favorable to the employer after this court issued a contrary decision in the same matter in E & J Gallo Winery v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1536 (Dykes). Pursuant to the request of Dykess employer, E & J Gallo Winery, the WCAB reopened Dykess award and applied a more recent Supreme Court decision in Brodie v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313 (Brodie), 28 months after the Supreme Court denied review of Dykes case. Perplexed by the WCABs actions, Dykes asks whether the WCAB exceeded its powers by reopening and reconsidering his award which already had been exhaustively litigated and affirmed through the appellate process. Under the circumstances, Court must conclude the WCAB acted within its powers in reducing Dykess award.