CA Unpub Decisions

In 1995, the trial court found defendant John D. Kleder not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) on three counts of arson, one count of reckless evasion of a pursuing officer, and one count of driving under the influence. It committed him to a state hospital for 11 years and eight months pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.[1] The commitment expired, and the trial court extended it for two years upon the Peoples petition. ( 1026.5.) The two-year period expired, and the trial court extended it for two years upon the Peoples petition. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the trial court transgressed his statutory right and constitutional-due-process right to a jury trial by accepting defense counsels waiver of the right, (2) alternatively, the NGI statutory scheme allowing waiver of jury trial by counsel transgresses his constitutional right to equal protection of the law, (3) the trial court erred by failing to conduct a Marsden[2] hearing, and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel had a conflict of interest, failed to move to dismiss the petition as untimely, and failed to subject the case to meaningful adversarial testing. Court affirm the judgment.

On July 27, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against Donald Robinson under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.)[1] The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on September 11, 1998, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

On July 27, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against William Langhorne under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.)[1] The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on November 14, 1997, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

On July 27, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against Jare Stephens under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.)[1] The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on June 23, 1998, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

Defendant Fermin Sanchez admitted violating the terms of his probation. On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion when it terminated his probation and imposed a previously suspended three year prison sentence. Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Defendant pleaded no contest to a felony, spousal rape, and a misdemeanor, driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. (Pen. Code, 262, subd. (a)(1); Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to state prison for six years and the court orally imposed a restitution fine of $600, among other fines and fees. However, the minute order and abstract of judgment reflect a restitution fine of $1,200.00. Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the courts oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the minute order and abstract of judgment, and the minute order and abstract must be corrected. The Attorney General agrees in this case. For the reasons discussed below, we shall direct the clerk of the superior court to modify the judgment to reflect the courts orally pronounced judgment. As modified, Court affirm.

East Santa Rosa Neighbors appeals from an order of the Sonoma County Superior Court denying appellants petition for a writ of mandate, by which appellant sought to set aside various approvals by the City of Santa Rosa (City), including approval of a secondary public access road connecting the Skyhawk subdivision with a public road, approval of an emergency vehicle access (EVA), and approval of a final subdivision map for phases 9 and 10 of the Skyhawk development. Appellant contends that the approvals violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, 21000 et seq.), the Williamson Act (Gov. Code, 51200 et seq.), the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code 66410 et seq.), and the Santa Rosa City Code.
Real parties in interest Christopherson Homes, Inc. and Skyhawk Partners (sometimes jointly referred to as the developer), joined by real party in interest Stashak Family Partnership, L.P., dispute the foregoing claims and further argue that appellant lacks standing for its Williamson Act and CEQA claims, the CEQA issue regarding the Williamson Act claim is moot, and the CEQA claim is time barred. Respondent City has informed us that it does not intend to file a brief in this action. Court affirm the order denying the writ petition.

Appellant Sione Fakalata was convicted by jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code 187, subd. (a)); three counts of robbery ( 212.5, subd. (c)); and one count of attempted robbery ( 664/212.5, subd. (c)). Appellant contends his convictions must be reversed because the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during his cross-examination and closing argument. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Sony Electronics Inc. (Sony) was the sublessee of a building owned by defendant Pinole Point Properties, Inc. (Pinole) under a lease that imposed upon Sony responsibility for repair and maintenance of the building. Upon the expiration of the sublease, Pinole contended that Sony had allowed the property to deteriorate and that, in particular, flooring installed by Sony was both substandard and in poor condition. After a dispute arose over the repairs, Sony brought an action for declaratory relief as to its obligations under the lease. Pinole cross-complained for the amounts it contended were owed to bring the property into proper repair.
The trial court found that Sony was liable for many repairs to the property under the repair and maintenance provision of the lease. In addition to miscellaneous repairs that are not individually challenged here, the court found Sony liable for the cost of replacing the floors it had installed during its tenancy. Sony challenges that finding on several grounds, in addition to contesting the award of prejudgment interest and attorney fees. While Court agree that cross defendants are not liable for prejudgment interest, Court otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendants and appellants Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation, Bally Total Fitness doing business as Bally Total Fitness Corporation, Bally-Crunch Total Fitness, Crunch Fitness International, Andrew Remlinger, and Stella Roberts (collectively Bally) appeal from the trial courts order denying their motion to compel arbitration of an action (Code Civ. Proc.,[1] 1281.2) filed by plaintiff and respondent Michael La Sala. The trial court based its ruling on the absence of an agreement to arbitrate. Finding Bally proved the existence of an arbitration agreement, Court reverse and remand for a determination regarding whether the agreement is otherwise enforceable.

A juvenile court conducted appellant L.M.s recall disposition hearing without securing the presence of counsel for the minor, reinstating his wardship and ordering him to comply with certain conditions of probation. (See Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] 679, 731.1.) He raised a right to counsel claim in his subsequent motion to set aside the wardship and terms of probation, which the juvenile court denied. L.M. appeals this denial order, contending that the juvenile court violated constitutional and statutory authority when conducting this proceeding without affording him the right to counsel. The Attorney General concedes error on statutory grounds, but argues that because L.M. is now 21 years old, the juvenile court lacks any further jurisdiction over him, rendering the appeal moot. Court find that the juvenile court erred, but dismiss the appeal as moot.

Paul Carlisle Anacker appealed from an order denying a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus in which he sought to reverse a decision by the Academy of Magical Arts, Inc. (the Academy) to temporarily suspend his membership. He also appealed from a subsequent order that imposed monetary sanctions against him for bringing a motion for reconsideration that was not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Court affirm.

Steven Manuel Padilla appeals a judgment following conviction of making criminal threats, attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder, and first degree murder, with findings of infliction of great bodily injury, and personal firearm use and discharge causing great bodily injury or death. (Pen. Code, 422, 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a), 189, 12022.7, 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d).) Court affirm.

Defendant, Reinaldo Manuel Sosa, pled no contest to an assault rifle possession charge. (Pen. Code, 12280, subd. (b).) He appeals from a probation revocation order. Defendant argues Judge Robert M. Martinez did not have jurisdiction to conduct a violation hearing and the order revoking probation was an abuse of discretion. The order revoking defendants probation and judgment are affirmed.