CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Edgardo Barajas Velasquez appeals from an order imposing a probation condition prohibiting him from having any contact with his wife, Andrea Velasquez, the victim of his domestic violence. Defendant contends the condition violates his rights to free association and marital privacy and therefore cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Court disagree and affirm the order.

A jury found defendant Tyrus Deon Stanley guilty of one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and further found that defendant personally used a deadly weapon, specifically a knife, and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in that assault. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the issue of his prior convictions. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegations that defendant had suffered a prior conviction that constituted a strike and a serious felony and another prior conviction that resulted in a prison term. At sentencing, the trial court denied defendants motion to strike his prior strike conviction, and sentenced him to 15 years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of certain prior convictions to impeach two of the Peoples witnesses, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial courts findings that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) that was also a serious felony (id., 667, subd. (a)) and a prior conviction that resulted in a prison term (id., 667.5, subd. (b)). Court disagree and therefore affirm.

Dan Earls, an employee of a meat processing company briefly elevated to the position of general manager, claimed he was fired for complaining that the owners son, who previously served in that capacity and was poised to be reinstated during Earlss tenure, was a methamphetamine addict who should not be running the company. The company previously had been threatened with the withdrawal of federal inspection services due to the fact that this son suffered a prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Dan Earls appeals from the judgment of nonsuit entered on his cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and from dismissal by summary adjudication of his contract related claims.
We conclude that the trial court improvidently entered judgment of nonsuit because Earls made a sufficient showing that his firing implicated the significant public policies of our federal meat and poultry inspection laws. Further, the contract related claims were not, as the trial court held, preempted by federal law. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment of nonsuit as well as the dismissal of the contract claims.

Plaintiff[1] challenges a posttrial order offsetting in its entirety a $15,600 jury verdict in his favor. Plaintiff sued several defendants for damages arising from defects in his newly purchased home. After entering a judicially approved good faith settlement agreement with other defendants for $34,000, plaintiff proceeded to trial against the remaining defendants, Rodan Termite Control, Inc. and its agent Daniel Madrid (collectively, Rodan), and obtained a verdict for $15,600. Thereafter, the trial court granted Rodans motion, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure[2] section 877, to offset the settlement proceeds against the verdict and reduce the judgment to zero. Plaintiff has timely appealed from the resulting judgment for zero dollars. Court affirm.

Shawn M. argues there was insufficient evidence for the juvenile court to sustain an allegation that he carried a loaded firearm in a public place. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant and appellant Michael Allan Conover appeals from the superior courts denial of his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest to three counts of second degree robbery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and one count of petty theft with a prior, as well as his admissions of related enhancement allegations. Conover was sentenced to a term of 20 years in prison. Conover contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform him of exculpatory evidence when advising him regarding his plea, and the trial court therefore abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his plea. Court affirm.

Plaintiff and Appellant ZAP (ZAP) filed suit against defendants and respondents DaimlerChysler AG (DCAG), Smart GMBH (Smart) and Ulrich Walker (Walker) (collectively defendants), for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations among other causes of action. ZAP alleged that defendants interfered with ZAPs prospective business relations with respect to ZAPs efforts to become a United States distributor of fuel efficient cars, called Smart Cars, which were manufactured in Germany.
DCAG is a German corporation which manufactures automobiles. Smart is a wholly owned subsidiary of DCAG and also a German corporation. Smart manufactures the line of cars called Smart Cars. Walker, a citizen and resident of Germany, is the chairman of the board of Smart. ZAP served its complaint on defendants through procedures set forth in the Hague Convention. Defendants filed motions to quash service of the summons and to dismiss the complaint, which the trial court granted. ZAP appealed. Court affirm. For California to exercise personal jurisdiction over DCAG, Smart or Walker would not comport with fair play and substantial justice.

James Kamply Morris and Jamal Laron Young appeal from the judgments entered following their convictions by jury on count 1 - first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) and three counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187) with, as to each offense, a principal armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced each appellant to prison for 25 years to life on count 1, plus 1 year for the armed enhancement, with a consecutive term of life with the possibility of parole on count 2, plus 1 year for the armed enhancement, and a concurrent term of life with the possibility of parole, plus 1 year for the armed enhancement, as to each of counts 3 and 4. Appellants claim trial error occurred. Court affirm the judgments.

Vincent Reynolds appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on count 1 assault by a state prisoner (Pen. Code, 4501) and count 2 assault by a life prisoner (Pen. Code, 4500), each with infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a)), and following his conviction for mayhem (Pen. Code, 203),[1] with admissions that he suffered two prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (d)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for a total unstayed term of 27 years to life on count 2, with a concurrent term of 25 years to life on count 3, and imposed a $20 court security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1). Appellant claims trial error occurred, and respondent claims sentencing error occurred. Court modify the judgment and, as modified, Court affirm it.

C.V. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court requiring her visits with her son, Martin D., to be monitored. The monitor requirement was entered as part of the disposition order after the court had sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 supplemental petition alleging that Martins placement with the maternal grandmother was no longer suitable. As Court explain, Court conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that Mothers visits are to be monitored. Accordingly, Court affirm the order.

Demetric Ray Martin appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of two counts of forcibly resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, 69)[1] and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon upon a peace officer ( 245, subd. (c)) and found true a special allegation that, pursuant to section 12022.7, subdivision (a), during one of the charged assaults he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim. Martin contends that the trial court erred by granting the Peoples motion to consolidate the charge arising from an incident on June 27, 2005, with other charges arising from an incident on October 17, 2005. He further maintains that the court violated his federal constitutional rights when it sentenced him to the upper term for the assault that caused great bodily injury. Martin also requests that Court independently review the transcript of the trial courts in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion seeking discovery of evidence of misconduct by the various peace officers who were involved in the two incidents (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531), and that Court reverse and remand if the record shows that he was improperly denied discoverable documents. Finding no error, Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Henry Carrillo appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of the first degree felony murder of Antoine Butler (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 189), the attempted second degree robbery of Butler and Harry Martinez ( 664, 211), and the second degree robbery of Andres Soto. ( 211.) He was sentenced to prison for 28 years to life. Appellant contends that the trial court failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offenses of grand theft and attempted grand theft from the person ( 664, 487, subd. (c)), as well as second degree murder. He also contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct in her opening statement and closing argument. Court affirm.

A modification decision.