CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal from final judgment after the trial court modified and confirmed the award of an arbitrator in an underinsured motorist case. Court reverse the judgment to the extent it modified the arbitrators award and remand the matter with directions to confirm the original and unmodified arbitration award.

Appellant Jesse L. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after the court found true the allegations that he committed three felonies. He was committed to a counseling program upon specific terms and conditions. Appellant challenges the constitutional validity of a condition which prohibited him from associating with gang members, and contends that condition is vague and overbroad. Court modify the condition and otherwise affirm.

Appellant Timothy L. was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, repeatedly violated probation and admitted committing subsequent offenses, and was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) after admitting that he committed second degree robbery and evasion of a peace officer during a carjacking and high-speed chase. On appeal, he contends the court abused its discretion when it committed him to DJJ. Court affirm.

The court sentenced Burnham Tutotasi Vilieuga to a lengthy prison term after a jury convicted him of robbery and the court found true he had suffered a prior conviction. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court properly imposed a $25 victim restitution fine. (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (f).) The judgment is affirmed.

Laura R. appeals from a postjudgment order that terminated parental rights to her daughter, Debbie R., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She argues an evidentiary hearing should have been held on a modification petition, evidentiary errors were made, and the evidence does not support a finding that Debbie would not benefit from continuing the parent-child relationship. Court disagree and affirm.

In this appeal, Save Our Waterfront Committee challenges a judgment rejecting its petition for writ of mandate and validation complaint relating to the formation of a community services district by defendant City of Monterey. Appellant raises multiple issues related to the environmental impact of the alleged project. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to address appellant's substantive contentions and must therefore dismiss the appeal as to the validation complaint. Court further agree with the trial court's disposition of the mandamus petition and therefore must affirm the judgment as to that cause of action.

Fuller contends: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his prior commission of acts of domestic violence; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument; (3) his Marsden[1]motion was improperly denied; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. In a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we consider concurrently herewith, Fuller contends that his counsel was ineffective. Court affirm Fullers conviction and deny the writ petition.

Plaintiffs are Brazilian companies that distributed defendant Wynn Oil Companys (Wynn) petroleum products in Brazil in the 1990s. In 2002, plaintiffs sued Wynn for damages for fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation, alleging that from 1995 to 2000, Wynn made false promises that it would institute local production of its products when warranted by market conditions, thereby inducing plaintiffs to invest millions of dollars to develop the Brazilian market for Wynns products. The trial court granted Wynns summary judgment motion on the ground that plaintiffs factually devoid discovery responses on the issue of proximately caused lost investment damages entitled Wynn to judgment as a matter of law. Court agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment.

On May 22, 2002, respondent trustee Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles (JFS) filed a petition under Probate Code section 17200[1]that sought a determination that, at the time of the death of William Pitts in December 2001, the Williams Pitts 2001 Revocable Inter Vivos Trust existed with assets of approximately $818,000. The trial court granted JFSs petition on August 27, 2002; a formal order to that effect was entered on September 17, 2002. On January 19, 2006, appellant filed a new petition, which was identical to the one he had filed in September 2002. The trial court denied this petition as untimely and for the further reason that it was barred by its order of September 17, 2002. This appeal is from that order. Court affirm.

Within the span of three weeks, an employee slipped and fell, landing on her back and sustaining a strain of her back and left knee, was treated by a physician and placed on work restrictions, used three sick days because she could not bear the pain, and, within days of returning to work, was terminated. More than a year later, the employee still suffered unbearable pain in her foot, ankle, and knee. She could not lift heavy objects like bags of clothes, had problems walking, and her ankle would swell, making it difficult to stand.
Court conclude there are disputed issues of fact as to whether the employee was disabled and reverse.

Appellants Taek Ki Hwang and Eun Kyung Hwang, husband and wife (hereafter sometimes referred to collectively as appellants), brought an action for medical malpractice against respondent Dae Choong Kim, M.D. The gravamen of the case is that respondent told Mr. Hwang that he was HIV positive. It turned out that respondents statement was based on an erroneous laboratory report and Mr. Hwang was not HIV positive. The jury returned a verdict for respondent by a 12-0 vote. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendants Terrell Barron and Tryon Larry Smith of one count of carjacking ( 215, subd. (a))[1]and two counts of robbery ( 211) with the findings that the crimes had been committed for the benefit of a street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that each defendant had personally used a firearm during commission of the crimes ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). In addition, the jury convicted defendant Smith of assault ( 240).
Defendants raise several contentions involving the sufficiency of the evidence. They attack the evidence identifying them as the perpetrators of the offenses; they urge there is insufficient evidence to support the street gang enhancement; and they claim that the evidence did not establish a carjacking. In addition, defendant Barron argues that one of the trial courts evidentiary rulings constituted prejudicial error. Court reject all claims of error and therefore affirm the judgments.

Defendant Melchor Juarez was convicted by jury of the murder of Pedro Oliverez (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true the allegation that he caused the death with a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 40 years.
Defendant contends he was prejudiced by the rendition of CALJIC (5th Ed.) No. 2.92 because the instruction erroneously suggests to jurors that they may consider a witness[s] confidence in his or her identification, as expressed [by the witness] at trial, to be a reliable indicat[or] of its accuracy. We reject defendants contention and hold that the jury was properly instructed with CALJIC No. 2.92, and, even if the jury should not have been so instructed, any resulting error was harmless. The judgment is affirmed.

Martin de la Cruz appeals from the judgment following his convictions for first degree robbery. Appellant appeals on the ground the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting a victims preliminary hearing testimony into evidence. Because we find the prosecution exercised due diligence to secure the witnesss presence, Court affirm.