CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Michael B. appeals from the Del Norte County Juvenile Courts dispositional order of August 30, 2007, which declared appellant a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1]and placed him on probation, to be served at home, with a variety of conditions. Pursuant to People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, appellant asks this court to review the record in the court below and determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing and then consideration by this court. Court have examined that record, find no such issues, and hence affirm the order appealed from.

Julianna Agardi appeals from an order of dismissal after the court sustained a demurrer to her complaint with leave to amend and she failed to file an amended complaint within the allotted time. Court find the trial court properly sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Defendant Myron Omar White appeals from a judgment and sentence of seven years four months to state prison after a negotiated disposition. Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief in which he raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court have conducted that review and find no arguable issues and affirm the judgment. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so.

This case involves four appeals arising from a construction accident in Carson, California on October 4, 2001. The parties raise various issues relating to the judgment and the effects of settlements. After providing a brief factual overview, Court address the issues raised by the separate appeals.

Defendant and appellant Baldemar Garcia Sanchez appeals from his conviction by a jury of felony evading a police officer.[1] He contends (1) he was denied due process as a result of the denial of his motion to replace his public defender with a privately retained attorney; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

Plaintiff brought this action against her employer and a supervisor under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA or Act) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.), alleging claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, unlawful denial of transfer and employment, and failure to engage in the interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations. (All section references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.)
The action was tried to a jury, which returned a unanimous verdict in favor of defendants.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that (1) the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) a new trial should have been granted based on newly discovered evidence, and (3) the verdict form was defective. Court conclude that (1) substantial evidence supports the verdict, (2) the newly discovered evidence would not have made a difference in the outcome and could have been found through reasonable diligence, and (3) any defect in the verdict form was waived and, in any event, harmless. Court therefore affirm.

Defendants and appellants, Alfred Johnson and Kenneth Pettis, appeal from the judgment entered following their convictions, by plea of nolo contendere, for unlawful access card activity (Pen. Code, 484i, subd. (c)). Sentenced to state prison for two years, defendants claim the trial court erred by denying their motion to suppress evidence. The judgments are affirmed.

Defendant, Travon Freeman, appeals from his convictions for two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,[1] 211) and the findings that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the robberies. ( 12022.53, subd. (b).) Defendant admitted that he was previously convicted of two felonies, one of which was a serious felony, and served two prior prison terms. Defendant argues the trial court: improperly admitted evidence of a sexual relationship as well as a videotape depicting him in handcuffs; failed to exercise its discretion to sentence him to a low term; and penalized him for exercising his jury trial right. The Attorney General argues an additional court security fee should have been imposed. Court affirm with a minor modification.

Defendant Amanullah Khan, appearing in propria persona on behalf of himself and his wife, defendant Stella Khan[1](collectively Khan), appeals from the default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff The CIT Group/Capital Equipment Financing, Inc., formerly known as Equipment Credit Services, Inc. (CIT). Khan contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set the default judgment aside. Court find no merit in the contention and consequently affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Automated Switching & Controls, Inc. (Automated), prevailed in a jury trial against defendants Modern Continental Construction Company, Modern Continental Roadway, Modern Continental Construction Holding, and Modern Continental Companies, Inc. (collectively Modern). Automated appeals from that judgment, contending that the trial court erred in denying its motions (1) to vacate and reinstate the judgment to include penalties for bad faith withholding of payments under prompt payment statutes, (2) for prejudgment interest, and (3) for attorney fees. Court reverse the judgment insofar as it denies attorney fees and remand the matter for further proceedings on that issue. In all other respects, Court affirm.

Appellant Carl NcNeil was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of possession for sale of cocaine base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. Appellant admitted that he had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and suffered a prior felony conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12 (the "Three Strikes" law). The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of 10 years in state prison, consisting of the middle term of four years for the current offense, doubled to eight years pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus two one-year enhancement terms for the prior prison terms. Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the intent required for the charged offense, and in imposing certain of his fines. Court reverse the judgment of conviction and remand this matter for a new trial.

In the underlying action, which arises out of several real estate transactions, the trial court entered judgment against appellants Rachel Olmeda Acuna, Mike Miguel Trelles, and Margaret Cruz Ledesma on respondents claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion. Court affirm in part and reverse in part.

An employee, Arshavir Iskanian, appeals from an order granting the motion by his employer, CLS Transportation of Los Angeles, to compel the individual arbitration of claims brought in a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged various Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law violations, such as the failure to pay statutorily required overtime compensation. (Lab. Code, 510, 1198.)
Assuming the matter is not moot due to Iskanians satisfaction with the arbitration which has been ordered, let a writ of mandate issue. This conditional writ of mandate directs the superior court to reconsider in light of Gentry whether the arbitration agreement as a whole is unconscionable and thus void and, if the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable, to determine in light of Gentry if the prohibition against representative or class actions is nonetheless void. If either the arbitration agreement as a whole or the prohibition against representative or class actions is void, the superior court is directed to vacate the order under review and proceed consistent with the opinion in Gentry.
Iskanian shall recover his costs.

Michael Legrand Allen appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)).[1] In the same proceedings, the jury acquitted him of a charge of attempted murder and the jury deadlocked six-to-six on two charges of felonious assault. At that point, appellant agreed to a plea bargain. The prosecutor proposed that appellant would be sentenced to a four-year prison term for possessing the firearm, consisting of a doubled, two-year middle term as appellant had a 1997 conviction of discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner ( 246.3), a serious felony within the meaning of the three strikes law (No. BA158728). ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) If appellant accepted that term of imprisonment, the prosecutor would dismiss the remaining charges and enhancements. Appellant agreed, and the trial court then sentenced him, as promised, to the four-year prison term. The remaining counts and enhancements were dismissed.
Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.