CA Unpub Decisions

Christopher Johnson appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated pleas of no contest to count 3 receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)), count 4 identity theft (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a)), and count 7 theft (Pen. Code, 484e, subd. (d)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for four years four months. He claims the trial court erred. Court affirm the judgment.

Joyce L. Trevillian (wife) appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted Marvin Trevillian's (husband) motion for summary adjudication. Wife contends that the court erred in ruling (1) that no community property interest arose from her management of husband's property; (2) that the prenuptial agreement bars wife from asserting a community property interest in husband's property; and (3) that there were no disputed material facts concerning whether husband was equitably estopped from asserting the terms of the prenuptial agreement or whether husband fraudulently induced wife to enter into that agreement. Court affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Brenda Hilton brought suit against defendants and respondents Joe and Jean Bressler, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained from being bitten by the Bresslers dog. The trial jury delivered a unanimous verdict finding the Bresslers strictly liable[1] for Hiltons injuries and awarding Hilton damages equivalent to her past medical expenses. Hilton subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. The trial court denied the motion. Court affirm.

Moises Huerta appeals from the judgment following his jury trial and conviction of four counts of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder; assault with a firearm; and possession of an assault weapon. (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(2), 12280, subd. (b).)[1] The jury found several gun use allegations to be true. ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.5, subd. (a).) The court sentenced appellant to serve life plus one hundred years in prison, including four consecutive life terms for the attempted murders, with a consecutive 25-year-to-life section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement for each murder. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting the preliminary hearing testimony of a prosecution witness and by imposing a five-year term for a section 12022.5, subdivision (a) gun use enhancement. Court reduce that gun use enhancement to a four-year term and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Ronald Chatters, Jr. appeals from his convictions of possession of cocaine and oxycodine for sale and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He contends the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the defense of momentary possession as to each offense. Court need not decide whether the court should have given that instruction under the evidence in this case because Court conclude that any error in failing to give the instruction was harmless. Chatters also contends, and the People agree, that the trial court erred in denying him 170 days of presentence conduct credit. Court order that the abstract of judgment be corrected.

Jason Whitlow (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his convictions of two counts of first degree murder with the finding of a multiple murder special circumstance. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(3).)[1] The jury also made findings in count 1 of the personal and intentional use of a firearm and the personal and intentional discharge of a firearm proximately causing death ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)); and in count 2, that a principal personally and intentionally used a firearm and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing death ( 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1), (c) & (e)(1), & (d) & (e)(1)). The trial court imposed two terms of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), enhanced by consecutive terms of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancements.
Court find merit in some of defendants sentencing contentions and the Peoples one contention and will order the judgment modified by striking the firearm enhancements as to count 2 and by imposing a $40 court security fee. Also, Court order a remand for the trial court to calculate the presentence custody to which defendant is entitled, and the trial court will be directed to make certain corrections in the minute orders and abstract of judgment to conform to the oral proceedings of judgment. In all other respects, the judgment will be affirmed.

In this appeal, plaintiff David Fink (plaintiff) challenges an award of attorneys fees made in favor of defendants Moreno, Becerra & Guerrero, Inc., Moreno, Becerra, Guerrero & Casillas, Inc., Moreno, Becerra & Casillas, Inc., Danilo J. Becerra, Gregory W. Moreno and Michael A Guerrero (defendants). The award of fees was made because the defendants are the prevailing parties in this suit,[1]the suit is based in part on a cause of action for breach of contract, and there is a provision in the contract for an award of fees to the prevailing party in a suit brought to enforce the contract. The contract is a retainer agreement for legal representation, plaintiff is the client, and the defendants are the attorneys he hired to represent him. The several issues raised by plaintiff in this appeal are without merit because they are not supported by the law governing awards of attorneys fees, or because the appellate record does not support plaintiffs contentions. Court therefore affirm the order for fees and costs.

Stone Street Capital, LLC (appellant) appeals from a final judgment dismissing its action against the California State Lottery Commission (respondent) after the trial court granted respondents motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant sought declaratory relief, contending that respondent was required by law to recognize and accommodate an assignment of the last three years of prize winner Linda Fosters lottery winnings. Court reject appellants position that certain California Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provisions invalidate the California State Lottery Acts (Gov. Code, 8880 et seq.) (Lottery Act) restrictions on assignment, and therefore affirm the judgment.

On August 23, 2006, Scott, in propria persona, filed an action for professional negligence against Doctors Barte and Bruns (hereinafter "Barte"), St. John's Regional Medical Center, and others, for negligent diagnosis and treatment rendered during May through September, 2003. Scott alleges that the defendants misdiagnosed his illness as psychosis and schizophrenia. The judgment is affirmed.

Jose P. appeals from the order of the juvenile court that terminated his parental rights to seven-month old J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) Court affirm.

Nicky John Clucas appeals from the judgment following his guilty plea to false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, 236). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant was sentenced to the low term of 16 months state prison and ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), and victim restitution ( 1202.4, subd. (f)). The judgment is affirmed.

James Huggins (Huggins), was diagnosed with prostate cancer in May 2001. His doctors thought the cancer had been detected at an early stage and was curable. But surgical removal of his prostate gland in July 2001 revealed that was not the case and that the cancer had spread to the point where his cancer was far more serious than it was first thought to be. Huggins sued, asserting his doctors failure to diagnose his disease during earlier examinations shortened his life span and necessitated more aggressive and expensive therapy than he would otherwise have required. Hugginss wife, plaintiff Lynn Huggins, joined these claims and also asserted a claim for loss of consortium. They filed their complaint on June 1, 2004, more than three years after the initial cancer diagnosis but less than three years after the surgery. While plaintiffs appeal was pending, Huggins died, apparently due to prostate cancer. The appeal is now being pursued solely by his widow, plaintiff Lynn Huggins. (For ease of discussion we sometimes refer to plaintiff and Huggins as plaintiffs.) She asserts that their complaint was timely because the statute did not begin to run until July 2001 when the surgery revealed the incurable nature of the cancer, which incurability could have been prevented by proper diagnosis of the cancer in an examination Huggins underwent in 1999. Court agree and reverse the judgment.

Harold J. Rucker, Jr., appeals from a family court judgment awarding Tina L. Wells $192 per month in child support and $2,000 in attorney fees. For reasons that follow, we shall modify the judgment by striking the requirement that Rucker must obtain approval of the presiding judge to file future motions regarding child support. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Jonathan Ballard (Father) appeals from a family law judgment ordering him to pay $91 per month in child support through the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) to Danguole Tuimavave (Mother) for their minor child. For the reasons that follow, Court affirm.