CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant was a live-in caretaker for his brother Jimmy and his sister-in-law Bernice. Appellant felt they mistreated him, so one day, following an argument with Jimmy, he shot them both to death. At trial, he argued he acted in the heat of passion and was therefore guilty only of manslaughter. However, the jury convicted him of murdering Bernice in the first degree, and Jimmy in the second. Now, for the first time, he contends the court should have instructed on the defense of unconsciousness. He also claims the court erred in responding to the jurys questions about the provocation component of manslaughter, sentencing him to consecutive terms and imposing a parole revocation fine. We agree, as does the Attorney General, the fine was improper and must be stricken. However, finding appellants remaining arguments unmeritorious, Court affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Sara Lyn Ward pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, 191.5, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of less than one ounce of marijuana while driving a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, 23222, subd. (b)). Defendant argues the sentencing court erred in imposing the upper term for manslaughter by relying on her 1994 involuntary manslaughter conviction and several offense specific factors. As explained below, Court affirm.

A jury convicted Chris Silva Martinez of three counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a) [counts 1 3]) and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (id., 12021, subd. (a)(1) [count 4]). The jury found true the special allegations Martinez inflicted great bodily injury and personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury in committing count 1 (id., 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.7, subd. (a)), acted with willful premeditation and deliberation in committing counts 2 and 3 (id., 664, subd. (a)), and personally discharged a firearm while committing counts 2 and 3 (id., 12022.53, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced Martinez to a total prison term of seven years with a consecutive indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Terrance Hall appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5.[1] He also admitted an enhancement allegation based on his prior drug-related convictions ( 11370.2, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial courts imposition of a fee under section 11372.7 exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) there is insufficient evidence that defendant has the ability to pay this fee. For the reasons stated below, Court modify the judgment. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Disputes between subcontractor Larry Swanson, doing business as Swansons Painting (Swanson), and general contractor Handelin, Inc., doing business as Original Construction (Handelin), led to this action by Swanson against Handelin for breach of contract, quantum meruit recovery, and promissory estoppel. By special verdict, a jury awarded damages of $50,400. The court denied Handelin a motion for new trial premised on jury irregularity, misconduct, excessive damages, and insufficient evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., 657, subds. 1-2, 5-6.) Handelin appeals, reiterating its motion arguments. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Terrance Leo Bolton (Bolton) appeals from his conviction of first degree murder. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury, and maintains that his admissions to police were involuntary and made without waiving his Miranda rights. He also claims that the errors cumulatively denied him his constitutional rights to due process. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

The minor admitted misdemeanor allegations of brandishing a weapon (Pen. Code, 417, subd. (a)(1)) and making a criminal threat ( 422); she was declared a ward of the court and placed with her mother. The juvenile court determined the maximum period of confinement to be one year, four months. Two later probation violations did not alter the maximum term of confinement.
Respondent concedes that the trial court erred in calculating the minors maximum term of commitment, as indicated above. Court accept the concession and order that the minors maximum term of confinement be reduced from one year, four months to one year, two months. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to charges of violation of Penal Code sections 484, 666 (petty theft with four prior convictions of petty theft),[1]and admitted two prison priors ( 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to five years in state prison.[2] The plea was made pursuant to a negotiated disposition entered into with the prosecution; an additional charge of burglary was dismissed. The execution of this sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation and ordered to serve seven months in county jail and to successfully complete residential drug treatment (among other terms and conditions). His probation was subsequently revoked on two occasions; on the first his probation was reinstated and he was permitted to complete a new residential treatment program and on the second his probation was terminated unsuccessfully. This timely appeal followed. The judgment is affirmed.

Jin Rie (appellant) appeals from a final judgment dismissing his complaint against Rang H. Kang (Kang) and Bong Hun Yi (Yi) (collectively respondents) with prejudice. Court affirm.

William Wood appeals a judgment after his conviction of identity theft (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a), count one), making a false financial statement (id., 532a, subd. (1), count three) and false personation of another (id., 529, subd. 3, count four). We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the trial court properly admitted Wood's statements to an investigator about his prior acts of identity theft, 2) there was no prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, 3) the court did not err by denying Wood's motion for new trial based on jury misconduct, 4) it did not abuse its discretion by awarding $44,000 as victim restitution, 5) the award of presentence probation investigation costs must be affirmed, and 6) the abstract of judgment does not conform to the court's oral pronouncement of sentence. The abstract must be corrected. In all other respects, Court affirm.

Isabelle Lewis, Frankie Mae Adams, Marcella Bailey, Willie James Bowen, Matthew Bowen, Marsha L. Harper, Clevel Bowen, Beulah Bowen, Willie L. Bowen, Roosevelt Bowen, Alberta Randall, Christine Burns, Terry T. Bowen, and Carrie Mae Johnson (appellants), successors-in-interest of Mary Ann Bowen, deceased (Bowen), appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted Good Samaritan Hospitals (the hospital) motion for summary judgment. The trial courts grant of summary judgment in favor of the hospital disposed of appellants claim against the hospital for elder abuse and neglect of Bowen. Court affirm.

George L. Ayala (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his convictions of carjacking with a finding that a principal used a firearm to commit the offense (Pen. Code, 215, 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1); count 2)[1]and vandalism, in which the damage inflicted exceeded a value of $400 ( 594, subd. (a); count 7), each with a finding the crime was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). In bifurcated proceedings, defendant admitted that he had a prior juvenile adjudication of robbery as alleged pursuant to the Three Strikes law. ( 667, 1170.12.) At sentencing, the trial court granted a defense motion to strike the prior adjudication of robbery pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, but it denied the request to also strike the finding of the gang enhancement pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (g). The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for a term of life with a minimum term of 15 years. Court affirm the judgment.

This appeal is from an order of the probate court awarding extraordinary fees to the attorney for the personal representative of the estate of Pat Lopez (decedent). Until several years before her death, decedent operated the El Sombrero Nightclub out of a building she owned at 4712 Lankershim Boulevard in North Hollywood (the real property). Decedent died intestate on August 5, 2002, leaving an estate of about $1 million. The beneficiaries were her three surviving siblings and three minor children represented by appellant Zurama Evelyn Lopez, their guardian ad litem.