CA Unpub Decisions

Alvin Champagne, a sexually violent predator, challenges his commitment to an indeterminate term on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence, lack of trial court jurisdiction, impermissible retroactive application of an amended statute, cruel and/or unusual punishment, violations of the single subject rule, his constitutional rights to access to the courts, due process, double jeopardy, and equal protection, and violation of his constitutional right against ex post facto laws. Court affirm the judgment.

This is an appeal from judgment after a jury found defendant Michael Landis guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code 12021, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred in its written instructions to the jury. We conclude the instructional error did not deprive defendant of his constitutional rights to the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We also conclude it is not reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict in the absence of the error. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for burglary, theft of a firearm, and attempted criminal threats. He argues that the trial court deprived him of due process by giving an impermissible pinpoint instruction to the jury that directed a verdict on the count of burglary. Court affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment following a bench trial in a lawsuit for breach of two legal services contracts. Appellant Michelle Miller (Miller) claims the trial court erred in finding that she breached the contracts and in holding her liable to respondent Fitzgerald Abbott & Beardsley LLP (Fitzgerald) for unpaid legal bills and accrued interest totaling $52,741, and for attorneys fees and costs totaling $57,269. Court affirm.

T.D. (appellant) appeals from a jurisdictional order sustaining a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). He argues substantial evidence did not support the order below. Court affirm.

Following a search of his home pursuant to a search warrant, defendant Stephen Anderson was charged with possession of marijuana for sale and cultivation of marijuana. The warrant application included an affidavit that the magistrate partially sealed in order to protect the identity of a confidential informant. After moving unsuccessfully to unseal the affidavit and traverse and quash the warrant, defendant pleaded no contest to the charge of cultivation of marijuana. He asks this court to review the sealed material, including the in camera hearing transcript, and determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion. Having done so, and finding no error or abuse of discretion in the trial courts rulings, Court affirm the judgment.

In the underlying action, appellant Robert L. Joiner asserted claims of racial discrimination and retaliation against his employer, respondent and cross-appellant Compton Community College District (CCCD). After the trial court granted summary judgment on Joiners claims in favor of CCCD, it denied CCCDs request for an award of attorney fees. Court affirm the summary judgment and the denial of the fee award.

Appellant Vicente Lemus was charged with one count of attempted murder and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1), 245, subd. (a)(1).)[1] As to all counts, it was alleged he personally inflicted great bodily injury. ( 12022.7, subd. (e).) A jury acquitted Lemus of the attempted murder charge (count one), but found him guilty on both counts of assault with a deadly weapon (counts two and three). On the third count, the jury found true the allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim under circumstances involving domestic violence. ( 12022.7, subd. (e).) Lemus appeals solely from his conviction on count three, contending the trial court failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on the defense of accident or misfortune and failed to instruct the jury on transferred self defense. Court reject these contentions and affirm.

Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence, Miguel Angel Vallejo pleaded no contest to one count of transporting a controlled substance. A prison sentence was imposed, and Vallejo was ordered to pay fees and restitution. On appeal Vallejo contends physical evidence seized from the trunk of his car after he was arrested should have been suppressed because it was obtained as a result of an illegal pretextual search. Court affirm.

Meddie Wyatt appeals a judgment dismissing her complaint against Patrick Umeh, Ngozi Umeh, and Edmund Umeh after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. She alleges that through fraud and undue influence, she was induced to sell real property to Patrick Umeh for less than its actual value. Before the sale, the probate court in a separate action had declared Wyatt to be a constructive trustee of the property for the benefit of her deceased fathers estate. The probate court later determined that Patrick Umeh was a bona fide purchaser for value and quieted title to the property in his favor. The judgment is affirmed.

Jimmie Dean Williams was convicted in 1986 of two counts of armed kidnapping for robbery and two counts of robbery, and was sentenced to state prison for an indeterminate life term plus two years with a minimum parole date of May 15, 1996. In 2006, the Board of Parole Hearings found for the seventh time that Williams is unsuitable for parole, and the matter is before us on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Court agree with Williams that the Boards decision is not supported by some evidence and, for this reason, grant the petition and order his immediate release.

While his appeal from a conviction of the murder of Randy Morales (and another murder) was pending (B193733), petitioner Javier Marquez filed this petition for habeas corpus, raising an issue arising outside the appellate record. The issue is whether petitioner was deprived of due process with respect to the Morales murder because an accomplice in that offense, George Vidales, testified at trial under a plea agreement that petitioner contends compelled Vidales to testify in accordance with an interview statement he previously made to police. (See People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 438, 449-455.) The same issue regarding Vidaless plea agreement was also before us in the appeal of another principal in Moraless murder, at whose trial Vidales also testified. (People v. Reyes (July 28, 2008, B186285) Cal.App.4th (Reyes)). Court issued an order to show cause, and received respondents return and petitioners reply to it. The matter was argued concurrently with petitioners appeal.

Jon Jeffery Wright appeals a judgment after conviction by jury of first degree residential burglary, misdemeanor resisting arrest, misdemeanor prowling, and possession of drug paraphernalia. (Pen. Code, 459, 148, subd. (a)(1), 647, subd. (h); Health & Saf. Code, 11364.)We appointed counsel to represent him in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
On June 16, 2008, we advised Wright that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have received a response from him contending that insufficient evidence supports his conviction of residential burglary. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, Court present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Wright's contention.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of six counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to state prison for 18 years. He appeals, contending: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior, uncharged sex offense; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support one of the charges; (3) he was improperly convicted on multiple counts for a single offense; and (4) the trial court committed various sentencing errors. Court agree with defendants second contention and reverse the conviction on that charge. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.