CA Unpub Decisions

Byron Walter Mayfield, Eric Stephen Lewis and Anthony Joseph Rimoldi appeal their convictions for voluntary manslaughter (Mayfield) and first degree murder (Lewis and Rimoldi) arising out of a prison riot. Court affirm their convictions, modifying only Rimoldis sentence to omit a parole revocation fine erroneously imposed by the trial court.

Defendant, Antoinette Maldonado, was charged in a felony complaint with one count of aggravated battery by gassing upon a peace officer (Pen. Code, 4501.1, subd. (a)).[1] Defendant plead not guilty at her arraignment on October 25, 2007. At the pre-preliminary hearing conference on November 6, 2007 the court declared a doubt as to defendants mental competence ( 1368). The trial court suspended the criminal proceedings and ordered a medical report. On January 17, 2008, the district attorney and defendants counsel stipulated to the doctors report. The trial court found that defendant was competent to proceed to trial and ordered criminal proceedings reinstated.
The judgment is affirmed.

The Legislature has provided a remedy for suppliers of materials and performers of work on automobilesthe lien described in Civil Code section 3068. Real party in interest did not contest its failure to perfect that lien in the manner prescribed by statute. Hence, real party in interest has no claim for compensation from petitioner, with whom real party in interest had no contractual relationship. The trial courts reliance on the more flexible lien provisions of Civil Code section 3051 was misplaced, as that statute expressly does not apply to motor vehicles.

Defendant Freddy Meza severely beat his girlfriend, threatened her, and took her car. The next day, he called her and threatened retaliation if she testified. While awaiting trial in the county jail, he assaulted another inmate. He was convicted of several charges and sentenced to 11 years four months in prison.
On appeal, Meza argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove a charge under Penal Code section 10851 of unlawfully taking a vehicle. He also contends that the court erred by failing to give him four additional days of presentence custody credit when it recalled and corrected his sentence four days after the original sentencing. Court reject these contentions and order correction of two minor sentencing errors conceded by the People and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

After hearing the evidence presented, the trial court granted the petition on clear and convincing evidence of abandonment. The court found that it would be in the best interests of the children to be freed from Kellys custody and control and to be adopted by Patricia.

Defendant Ventura County Watershed Protection District appeals from a $2.9 million judgment in favor of plaintiffs Ladd and Associates and Safeco Insurance Company of America consisting of damages for extra work performed under a public construction contract. Judgment was entered after confirmation of an arbitration award under Public Contract Code section 10240 et seq., which provides for review of such judgments on the merits. (Pub. Contract Code, 10240.12 [award must be vacated if contrary to law or not supported by substantial evidence]; see also County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 751 [arbitration award under Pub. Contract Code, 10240 et seq. reviewed on merits].) Defendant argues the award was contrary to law, it did not waive plaintiffs contractual duty to make a proper claim, plaintiffs signed a release as to one portion of the award, and causation was not proven. Court affirm.

In this fair housing action, Gladis De La Cruz[1](for herself and her minor children, Eduardo, Daisy, and Juan), her husband Juan Pablo De La Cruz, and the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley (FHC) allege that defendants Seven Palms Apartments (Seven Palms), Olde Pasadena Realty (OPR), John Holman, Sonia Holman, Thomas Maple, and Fred Hartman discriminated against plaintiffs on the basis of their familial status. Plaintiffs allege that Mrs. De La Cruz complained to Seven Palms management about mistreatment of her children and enforcement of apartment rules that discriminated against children, and the family was then evicted from Seven Palms, purportedly for exceeding occupancy limits. Before trial, the court ruled in favor of plaintiffs on summary adjudication that the apartment rules were discriminatory on their face. Following the bench trial, the court found in favor of defendants and against the FHC and the individual plaintiffs on the discrimination and ancillary causes of action, with one exception: the trial court found in favor of Mrs. De La Cruz and against Seven Palms and Mr. Hartman for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and emotional distress, awarding her $8,250, plus $10,000 in punitive damages.[2] On the parties posttrial motions for attorneys fees, the court found defendants were the prevailing parties under Civil Code section 1717 and the rental agreement, and awarded defendants $39,725 in attorneys fees against all plaintiffs, including the FHC. The trial courts judgment awarding defendants their attorneys fees against the FHC and Mrs. De La Cruz is reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Plaintiff appeals the judgment entered for defendants on his action to quiet title to property and foreclose on an unrecorded deed of trust. He contends that the trial court erred in finding a transfer earlier in the chain of title was not void; in concluding a subsequent purchaser of the property was a bona fide purchaser for value; and in finding his claims were barred by laches. Court affirm.

Frank Linsalato appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459). The allegation that he damaged and destroyed property of value exceeding $1,000,000.00 within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.6, subd. (a)(3) was found not true, and appellant was found not guilty of theft of personal property (Pen. Code, 487) and vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a)). Following a court trial, appellant was found to have suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subd. (b)-(i)). He was sentenced to prison for the low term of 16 months, doubled to two years and eight months by reason of the Three Strikes law.

Luis Mena (appellant) appeals following his plea of guilty to one count of sale or transportation of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). He admitted the allegation that the controlled substance exceeded four kilograms by weight. (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.4, subd. (a)(2).)
The trial court sentenced appellant to the agreed-upon term of nine years in state prison consisting of the midterm of four years on the transportation count and five consecutive years for the weight allegation. The judgment is affirmed.

Pablo Sanchez was dating Rigoberto Astorgas sister, who gave birth to Sanchezs child. On November 26, 2006, Sanchez was driving his brother and another passenger in a mobile home park. At an intersection, Sanchez encountered a car in which Astorga was a passenger. Astorga got out of the car, approached Sanchez and began to argue with him about impregnating his sister. At some point, Astorga pulled out a handgun and struck Sanchez with his fist. Sanchez immediately accelerated, and Astorga fired one shot into the moving car, wounding Sanchez in the back.

Plaintiff Steve Kessler suffered severe injuries when he was struck by a hit-and-run driver. City of Los Angeles paramedics responded to the scene. In his suit against the City of Los Angeles (city), Kessler contends that the paramedics were negligent in failing to obtain the license number of the car that struck him. The trial court sustained the citys demurrer to Kesslers first amended complaint without leave to amend and entered a judgment dismissing the action against the city. Court affirm.

The juvenile court found a nine-year-old boy a person within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c).[1] The court then immediately issued a dispositional order declaring the boy a dependent of the court and detaining him from his presumed father. The father appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders. Court affirm.

Shawn Collins[1]appeals from the judgments entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of the sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), the finding he previously had been convicted of attempted burglary (Pen. Code, 664/459) within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and revocation of probation in case Nos. BA282403 and TA077048. The trial court sentenced Collins to eight years in prison. Court affirm the judgments.