CA Unpub Decisions

On August 14, 2007, Terrell B. (appellant) and Devon C.both under the age of 16were involved in a violent confrontation culminating outside a martial arts studio in Fairfield. Consistent with Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1]the Solano County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that appellant violated Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a) (1), assault with a deadly weapon.
Appellant argues on appeal that the evidence shows as a matter of law that he used only so much force as was reasonable to defend against the imminent danger posed by Devon. We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile courts determination that appellants use of force was excessive and that the danger posed by the assailant lacked the requisite imminence. Court therefore affirm the order.

Counsel for appellant Henry Glen Stanford has filed a brief raising no specific issues and asking for our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel sent notice to appellant of his right to file a brief in his own behalf. No such brief was filed. Having conducted such a review, Court conclude no arguable issues exist on appeal and affirm.

Defendant appeals from the disposition order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, which continued defendant as a ward on probation. Defendant admitted possessing a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, 12101, subds. (a)), which had been charged as a felony. Defendant contends that Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a)(1) is a wobbler, and the court failed to comply with Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.780(e)(5) (hereinafter, rule 5.780(e)(5)) and make a formal finding as to whether the offense was a misdemeanor or a felony. Court agree that the record does not establish that the lower court was aware that it had the discretion to determine whether the offense was a felony or a misdemeanor and remand for the lower court to make an express declaration.

Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) has asked this court to set aside an order from respondent superior court staying proceedings in that court. Court agree the stay was improvidently granted.

Appellants Diego Manuel Sobalvarro, Aaron Marvin Sobalvarro and DeWayne Ray Strong were charged with the willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Carlos Ochoa (Penal Code 187, subd. (a)).[1] After a joint jury trial, Diego and Aaron were convicted as charged; Strong was convicted of second degree murder. All three appealed. Diegos appeal presents a single contention: the trial court erred in admitting Strongs statement to a witness that [me] and Diego might have killed somebody. For the reasons discussed, Court reject these contentions and affirm the jurys verdict.

In April 1991, plaintiff Debra Kline formed a partnership with plaintiff Calvin Wiekamp and entered into an agreement to purchase a 22.94 acre parcel of commercial property (Property) located in defendant City of Pomona (City) from its owner Cotter & Co. (Cotter) to develop as a retail commercial center. This lawsuit arises from the foreclosure of a $9.3 million loan from defendant the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pomona (Agency) to Kline.
The court entered judgment in favor of Agency (and others) on the basis the foreclosure was valid. Kline contends that judgment was improper partly because in a previous appeal,[1]this court found the foreclosure was void. Kline also contends the court abused its discretion in awarding excessive attorneys fees to Agency based on an inadequate showing. On cross-appeal, Agency contends the court improperly denied its contract damages (which it would be entitled to only if the judgment is reversed). Agency also contends it was entitled to an award of damages for fraud in the inducement of the $9.3 million loan even if the judgment is affirmed. Court affirm the judgment and order.

Bryant Barraza and Nick Verdugo were tried together before a jury and convicted of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, assault with a firearm and related charges. The jury also found true several firearm-use and gang enhancement allegations. On appeal Barraza and Verdugo, each joining in the others arguments, primarily challenge several of the jury instructions, including those concerning accomplice testimony, conspiracy and assault with a firearm. They also contend the court erred in limiting their cross-examination of a witness and imposing certain sentence enhancements. Court modify the judgments to correct unauthorized sentences imposed on both Barraza and Verdugo and, in all other respects, affirm.

A modificaton decision.

Julio Cesar Sanchez appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury on one felony count of possession of heroin and one misdemeanor count of giving false information to a police officer. Court affirm.

Ruben Bravo appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw his 1994 plea of no contest to charges of attempted murder and possession of a weapon while in jail. Appellant contends that the sentencing court in 1994 did not advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea as required under Penal Code section 1016.5, and therefore the plea must be vacated. Court conclude that appellant did not establish that he was prejudiced by the lack of an immigration consequences advisement prior to his 1994 plea. Accordingly, Court affirm.

A modification decision.

This matter has already been before this court several times before. Two brothers, Henry Casden and Alan Casden, worked together at a company Alan owned. However, after a dispute between the two, Henry left his employment. Days later (but more than nine years ago now), Henry filed suit against his brother Alan and two of Alans businesses, alleging he did not receive the benefits to which he was entitled under several agreements relating to his employment. Alan and his companies then asserted a number of claims against Henry seeking rescission of the agreements and damages for fraud and failure to perform job duties. After the defendants prevailed on a summary judgment motion and subsequent jury trial (after a mistrial), Henry appealed and we reversed both judgments. After retrial, both sides appealed, and we affirmed in part, but reversed and remanded for retrial on certain claims. As relevant to this appeal, Henrys claim for bonus compensation was reinstated (the trial court had found it barred by a release agreement Henry had signed) and he was entitled to a new trial on the amount of damages for breach of an award agreement. After this latest retrial, as to both of these claims, the jury concluded Henry was due no damages. Henry appeals. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Arthur Jesus Silva (defendant) of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)[1]) and attempted second degree robbery ( 664/211). The jury found true the allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury in committing the assault and the attempted robbery. ( 12022.7, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for six years. On appeal, defendant contends that insufficient evidence supports his assault and attempted robbery convictions. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Sarah Uhrich appeals from an amended judgment that purported to correct, nunc pro tunc, a judgment earlier entered on her motion to enforce a settlement agreement with defendant Jeffrey Nabatmama. Court reverse.