CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Oscar Hugo Donado pleaded no contest to second degree robbery. The court granted Donado probation and ordered him to serve a year in jail. After several probation violations, Donado agreed to waive credits so that he could serve another jail term and be reinstated on probation. Donado failed to surrender as ordered to serve that jail term. The court sentenced Donado to prison. On appeal Donado challenges the trial courts refusal to give the waived presentence credits back to him. Court conclude Donado is not entitled to recapture the credits he waived in exchange for being reinstated on probation. Donados waiver was unambiguous and the trial court fully complied with its obligations under the agreement. Donado not the trial court bears sole responsibility for his failure to receive the promised jail term.

Deborah Jackson was charged with two drug counts, selling and possessing cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11352 and 11351.5, with allegations that she had suffered three prior convictions (forgery in 1993, and drug offenses in 1994 and 2001). In May 2006, in conformance with a negotiated plea, she entered a no contest plea to both counts, and the trial court then imposed a state prison sentence (six years, four months), suspended execution of sentence, and placed Jackson on formal probation for five years, with one year in county jail. In January 2007, Jackson was charged with another drug offense which constituted a violation of the terms of her probation. Following an uncontested hearing, the trial court revoked probation and executed its previously imposed sentence of six years, four months, with credit for time served. Jackson appeals, claiming the trial court should have reinstated probation. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

This case poses the question whether, for purposes of workers compensation insurance, persons who make deliveries of newspapers for the newspaper publisher Antelope Valley Press (AVP) are independent contractors or employees. The question arises not under a claim for workers compensation benefits by one of the newspaper carriers (carriers), but rather with respect to the premium that AVP was assessed for its workers compensation coverage.

Californias State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) classified the carriers as employees for purposes of AVPs workers compensation policy. AVP appealed the classification to the Department of Insurances Administrative Hearing Bureau. (Ins. Code, 11737, subd. (f); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, 2509.46). The administrative law judge (ALJ) who heard the case issued a lengthy proposed decision wherein he concluded that the carriers are employees for purposes of workers compensation insurance, and the Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner) adopted the decision.
Thereafter, AVP filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5). Reviewing the Commissioners decision under the substantial evidence test, the trial court determined that the ALJs findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also concluded that under the state of Californias workers compensation law, the ALJs conclusion that AVPs carriers are employees should be affirmed. AVP has appealed the trial courts judgment denying its petition for writ of administrative mandamus. Court's review of the facts of this case and relevant law convinces us that the carriers are employees for purposes of workers compensation law, not independent contractors. Therefore, Court affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an adoption proceeding in which the trial court denied the biological fathers request for presumed father status, terminated his parental rights, and freed the child for adoption. Court affirm.

Benjamin Victor Conant, also known as Benjamin Sierra, appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury of four counts of grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a), counts 14). The trial court sentenced him on count 1 to the midterm of two years and on each of counts 2 through 4, to one-third the midterm, or eight months, staying the sentences on counts 2 and 4 pursuant to section 654. It then suspended execution of sentence and placed appellant on three years formal probation.
The judgment is affirmed.

Alejandro T. (father) appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdiction and disposition order pertaining to minor A.T. (now age 4). Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support both (1) the courts jurisdictional finding that the minor was at risk of harm as a result of fathers domestic violence with the minors mother, and (2) the courts dispositional order placing the minor with her maternal grandmother. Court disagree and affirm the juvenile courts order.

The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment, rejecting the opponents claim of insufficient notice. Court reverse.

Isidro Delarosa Munoz was convicted of eight sex offenses committed during attacks on three victims (Sonia D., Elvira H., and Nicole G.) on three different days. (Pen. Code, 209, subd. (b)(1), 261, subd. (a)(2), 288a, subd. (c)(2), 286, subd. (c)(2).) The trial court sentenced him to state prison for a total term of 133 years to life, including five terms of 25 years to life under the one strike statute, section 667.61. Munoz appealed, contending section 667.61 permitted only one enhancement per incident, and that there were only three incidents in this case. The Attorney General conceded the point, and Court agreed and remanded for resentencing. (People v. Munoz (Mar. 19, 2007, B189831 [nonpub. opn.].) The judgment is affirmed.

Juan Villasenor Martinez and David Escobedo Acero (together Defendants) pleaded guilty to four drug-related offenses and admitted various sentencing enhancements. They challenge their respective sentences, claiming the trial court abused its discretion and violated their right to due process by relying on an untimely filed and unverified supplemental statement in aggravation at sentencing. In his petition for habeas corpus Martinez contends that he did not waive his right to appeal the introduction of the supplemental statement in aggravation. Court affirm the judgments. In doing so we reject the Attorney General's waiver argument and reach the merits of Martinez's arguments on appeal; accordingly, Court dismiss Martinez's habeas corpus petition as moot.

Plaintiffs and appellants Larry Williams and Kathryn Hanes filed a declaratory relief action concerning a dispute with defendant and respondent Franchise Tax Board (Board). They apparently did not pay their state income taxes for several years but had offered to do so on the condition the Board "answer several questions." They sought a declaration from the trial court that pursuant to section 1485 et seq. of the Civil Code the failure of the Board to respond to their offers to perform extinguished their obligation to pay their taxes for the operative years. The Board demurrered on several grounds, including the prohibition stated in article 13, section 32 of the California Constitution and Revenue and Taxation Code section 19381, against legal or equitable process preventing or enjoining the collection of any tax and on the ground that tax obligations may not be extinguished under the cited Civil Code sections. The trial court granted the demurrer without leave to amend. Williams and Hanes appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.

In this litigation, plaintiff The Upper Deck Company, et al. (collectively Upper Deck) filed a complaint alleging defendant Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Attorney) committed legal malpractice when providing services to Upper Deck. In response, Attorney filed a cross-complaint seeking recovery of its outstanding fees. As a fifth cause of action, Attorney pleaded a claim for unfair business practices, alleging Upper Deck had a pattern and practice of hiring law firms without the intent to pay the fees and, after incurring significant fees, claiming malpractice as a pretext to avoid paying the fees.
Upper Deck moved to strike the unfair business practices claim, as well as the other claims in the complaint, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly referred to as the anti SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 57.) The trial court denied Upper Deck's motion and this appeal followed.

Seventeen-year-old Ivan C. entered a negotiated admission to one count of transporting illegal aliens in the United States (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)). The juvenile court declared Ivan a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602), and placed him on probation, conditioned on him spending 69 days in juvenile hall. The order of wardship is affirmed.

Daniel Aguilar entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211) and admitted he personally used a deadly weapon (a knife) in the commission of the offenses. The plea agreement included a stipulated 16-month prison sentence. The court sentenced Aguilar to 16 months in prison.
On February 5, 2007, Aguilar approached a man and a woman and threatened to kill them with his knife if they did not give him money. Each victim told Aguilar that he or she did not have any money. Aguilar did not bother them further.
The judgment is affirmed.

Michael S. appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights over Melanie S. and Matthew S. Michael contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by summarily denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petition, erred by terminating parental rights by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination (former 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)), and should have ordered a permanent plan of guardianship. Judgment affirmed.