CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal from an order imposing sanctions against an attorney for his service of defective subpoenas. Court reverse.

Nathaniel Flowers appeals his convictions for attempted murder, discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle and assault with a semiautomatic firearm. In connection with these offenses, the People asserted various firearm and bodily injury enhancements and gang enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, alleging the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. During the trial Flowers objected to the admission of a photograph depicting a child throwing a gang sign arguing it was irrelevant to the charges and was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352. The court found the photograph was relevant to, among other things, prove the existence of Flowers gang, and that its probative value outweighed any prejudice. The jury convicted Flowers and found the gang allegations true. Thereafter, Flowers filed a motion for a new trial asserting that after the trial the prosecutor disclosed information possessed by the prosecutor prior to trial implicating one of the victims in this case in a fatal shooting in another case. Flowers argued that the failure to disclose this evidence amounted to a violation of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady). The trial court disagreed, observing another superior court judge had reviewed the potential Brady material pre-trial and found disclosure was not required. In any event, the trial court found no Brady violation, concluding the evidence was not material under Brady.
On appeal, Flowers asserts the trial court should not have admitted the picture of the child throwing a gang sign; and the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the Brady violation. As Court explain, neither of his claims has merit. The gang evidence at issue was relevant to prove the gang enhancement and its admission did not result in prejudice. Likewise, Flowers has not established the potential Brady evidence was material. Given the manner in which the victim was portrayed at trial and the other evidence against Flowers, the trial court properly concluded the withheld evidence did not rise to a Brady violation. Accordingly Court affirm.

Alan Little and Alan Little Custom Homes, Inc. (Little) appeal from orders enforcing a stipulated judgment (Code Civ. Proc., 664.6) and awarding attorney's fees and costs to Robert Brooks Benson (Benson) as a prevailing party pursuant to Labor Code sections 218.5 and 2699. Court affirm.

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) and minors Aaron A. and Gabriel K. appeal the dependency courts orders selecting guardianship as the permanent plan after finding under former Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) that Father Milton A. had maintained a beneficial relationship with the children, and the order denying rehearing on the section 366.26 orders. Court reverse the orders, and remand to the dependency court with directions to conduct a new section 366.26 hearing.

Raymond Nillis Jones (appellant) entered a plea of guilty to selling or transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced him to the low term of three years, doubled to six years due to appellants prior strike conviction within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d). Appellant appeals on the ground that his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded to the trial court because he did not enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to any offense charged by the prosecution. Court affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Ardra Campbell appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered following the trial courts sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend filed by defendant and respondent First American Title Company (First American). The trial court ruled that appellant lacked standing to pursue a claim against First American under Business and Professions Code section 17200. Court affirm.

Peter Charles Cantrell, Jr. appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of burglary, grand theft and petty theft. The People concede that Cantrell was wrongly convicted of both the greater offense of grand theft and the lesser included offense of petty theft. Court agree and modify the judgment.

Weyman Scholl appeals from the judgment entered following a court trial at which he was determined to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, 2960 et seq.) Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted a psychologist's testimony to prove that the commitment offense involved force or violence within the meaning of section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P). In addition, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the court's finding that the commitment offense met the force or violence criterion. Court affirm.

Patricia H. appeals the juvenile courts denial of her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, in which she requested custody of or reinstatement of reunification services with her son Sean H., as well as the subsequent order terminating her parental rights under section 366.26. Court affirm.

Jorge M., the father of minor N., appeals from the jurisdictional findings and disposition order of the juvenile court sustaining counts in a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions[2](a), (b) and (j) and removing N. from his custody. Appellant contends no substantial evidence supported any of the jurisdictional findings rendering the disposition order moot. Court affirm.

P.G., the mother of minors D., A., Mario and Diana, appeals from the order terminating her parental rights as to A., Mario and Diana. D. is not a party to this appeal. Appellant contends no substantial evidence supported the juvenile courts finding the sibling relationship exception to termination did not apply. Court affirm.

Appellant T.L., the mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights and selecting a permanent plan of adoption for the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.)[1] On appeal, appellant contends the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the exception to adoption for interference with a sibling relationship. Court affirm.

Appellant J. W., mother of the minor D. W., appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) She contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts findings: (1) the minor would likely be adopted; and (2) the beneficial relationship exception did not apply. Court affirm the judgment (order terminating parental rights).

Lawrence Christopher Smith appeals a judgment convicting him of murder and attempted murder. (He was also convicted of possession of marijuana for sale, but does not appeal as to that conviction.) He contends that (1) the court erred in consolidating the proceedings on the two charges, which arose out of unrelated incidents; (2) the court violated his due process rights by instructing the jury that it could infer consciousness of guilt from the evidence that threats were made against one of the witnesses against him despite the absence of any evidence that he authorized or was otherwise tied to the threats; (3) the court violated his rights to counsel and to present a defense by prohibiting his attorney from commenting on why the prosecutor had failed to call two eyewitnesses as part of its case in chief; and (4) the inadvertent publication to the jury of transcripts of two police interviews that were not admitted into evidence violated his rights to due process and a fair trial. Court find his arguments unavailing and affirm the judgment.