CA Unpub Decisions

Health and Safety Code section 1363.1 mandates the provider of health care service plans to disclose on its enrollment form any requirement to submit disputes to binding arbitration. In this case, plaintiff California Consumer Health Care Council brought suit against several providers of health care service plans for violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Plaintiff alleged that although defendants enrollment forms did not disclose that defendants required plan members to submit disputes to binding arbitration, defendants were nonetheless misrepresenting to claimants that they must arbitrate their disputes.
The judgment (order of dismissal) is affirmed.

Defendant Roger D. Fajardo appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court revoked his probation and imposed the previously suspended sentence of four years in state prison. This appeal challenges only the trial courts refusal to award him pre-sentence credit custody for the 24 days he spent in jail after his arrest on a new criminal charge but before the trial court summarily revoked his probation. Court adhere to the analysis we set forth in People v. Huff (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1100, recently reaffirmed by Division Seven of this district in People v. Pruitt (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 637, and conclude that defendant is not entitled to credit for that period. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

On March 6, 2007, Los Angeles Police Officers Carter Fenstemacher and Andre Plummer saw Eula Montellano walk toward a Cadillac sitting at a stop sign. Fenstemacher and Plummer were sitting directly behind the Cadillac in an unmarked car. The Cadillac was driven by a man while appellant, Vickie Marcia Dillard, sat in the passenger seat. After speaking to the occupants of the Cadillac, Montellano signaled to the Cadillac that it should move forward by waving her arms. The Cadillac then drove about 50 yards north and parked. Fenstemacher and Plummer followed the Cadillac. After appellant exited the Cadillac, Montellano walked up to appellant and gave her some money. Appellant then reached into her waistband and pulled out several small, off-white solid objects. Appellant and Montellano then walked down a driveway out of the officers sight. A few seconds later, Montellano walked out of the driveway holding an off-white object in her hand. The officers arrested Montellano as she exited the driveway and found rock cocaine and a crack pipe on Montellanos person. Montellano had no money on her. The judgment is affirmed with directions that the abstract of judgment be corrected to reflect that appellant was sentenced to the midterm of four years for the count of selling a controlled substance.

Defendant and appellant Milton Beverly (defendant) appeals an order of the trial court revoking his probation after a contested hearing. Defendant contends that the trial court violated his right to a jury trial, as set forth in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (Cunningham), by executing a previously imposed but suspended term of imprisonment that included an upper term on his conviction for firearm assault. Court conclude that defendant is estopped from challenging imposition of the upper term because he accepted that sentence as a term of his plea agreement. Court therefore affirm.

Jose O. Acevedo was convicted by plea of three counts of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. (Pen. Code, 191.5, subd. (a).)[1] The trial court sentenced him to a 10 year upper term on count one and consecutive two-year terms (one third the midterm) on the other counts, for an aggregate sentence of 14 years state prison. Acevedo appeals from the judgment, contending that the upper term sentence violates Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [127 S.Ct. 856] [Cunningham) and his Sixth Amendment right to jury trial. Court affirm.

Jamie Lee Galang pleaded no contest to one count of home invasion robbery and to the special allegation she was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c). On appeal Galang argues there is no factual basis for her plea to the firearm enhancement. Court affirm.

Anthony Quick (Quick) appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of guilty to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1]and receiving stolen property ( 496). The trial court sentenced Quick to four years, eight months in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Minor L.S. appeals from the juvenile courts judgment ordering his camp community placement for a minimum of six months. Court affirm.

Derrick Benjamin appeals from the judgment entered following a court trial which resulted in his conviction of two counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and two counts of grand theft of personal property ( 487, subd. (a)), and findings that he had suffered two prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served four prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Benjamin to seven years, four months in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

This case is before us for a second time. Luis Alfonso Mora confronted J. L. and H. S. at gunpoint on the street and robbed them of their valuables. Mora ordered J. L. to drive Mora and H. S. to a bank where J. L. was to use his automated teller machine card to withdraw money for Mora. J. L. withdrew $120 from a drive-through automated teller machine and gave it to Mora. Mora told J. L. to return to the location of their original confrontation, but then changed his mind and had J. L. stop the car and get into the trunk. Mora drove the car back to the original location, parked and sexually assaulted H. S. In the meantime J. L. escaped from the trunk and fled. The judgment is affirmed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Lewis Butler (defendant) pleaded no contest to one count of first degree residential burglary and admitted he had suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony. The trial court found defendant guilty, found the prior strike allegation to be true, and sentenced defendant to the low term of two years, doubled to four years based on the prior strike.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the sentence. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting us to review independently the entire appellate record. After reviewing the entire record, Court have determined that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Court therefore affirm the sentence.

The trial court sustained a petition alleging that 16-year-old appellant Aubrey P. committed vandalism in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor. The court found that appellant was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, adjudged him to be a ward of the court, and placed him in the care of a probation officer and in juvenile hall pending suitable placement, with a maximum physical confinement period not to exceed one year. Appellant appeals from the orders sustaining the petition and adjudging him to be a ward of the court, contending that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that he committed vandalism, erred in removing him from the custody of his parents and ordering him suitably placed, and also erred in calculating his maximum period of confinement and his custody credit. Appellant further contends that one of his probation conditions is unconstitutionally vague. Court affirm the juvenile court's orders.

Defendant, Mark A. Mossiah, appeals from an order revoking his probation. Defendant was given probation after he pled nolo contendere to one count of possession for sale of cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5.) On January 12, 2006, defendant was sentenced to the upper term of five years. But the execution of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on formal probation for a five-year period. Defendant was ordered to serve 252 days in county jail. The trial court awarded defendant a total of 242 of custody credits consisting of 162 days actual custody and 80 days of conduct credit. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that appellant J.J. possessed cocaine base for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. The court found that appellant was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, adjudged her to be a ward of the court, and placed her on home probation with a maximum confinement period of five years. By the time of the dispositional hearing in this matter, appellant was 18 years old and living in San Bernardino. She lived with her siblings without a parent present. She was in charge of the siblings. She was attending Los Angeles Trade-Technical College and trying to transfer her classes to San Bernardino.
This matter is remanded for a hearing to clarify the probation condition requiring continued school attendance, and to strike or impose the condition requiring notification before changing address, school or employment. The court's orders are affirmed in all other respects.