CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
Jesus M. Soto (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his convictions of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)),[1]attempted murder ( 664/187, subd. (a)), carjacking ( 215, subd. (a)), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant for the attempted murder to a determinate state prison term of nine years and for the murder to a consecutive indeterminate prison term of 25 years to life. He contends that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his eve-of-trial motions for a continuance and for the appointment of a defense expert, and the error is of constitutional dimension; (2) the limitations placed on defense testimony from the identification expert constituted an abuse of discretion, and the error is of constitutional dimension; and (3) there is Cunningham error (Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. __ [127 S. Ct. 856, 860] (Cunningham).)
Court conclude that the contentions lack merit and affirm the judgment. |
Plaintiffs Liza Pagador Abcede (Abcede) and Florence Pagador (Pagador), the surviving sisters of Florante Pagador (decedent), appeal from the order dismissing them from this action. The order was entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrers of defendants Taro Yokoyama, M.D. (Dr. Yokoyama), Robin Young-Sil Kim, M.D.[1](Dr. Kim), Jennifer Mahan, P.A. (Physicians Assistant Mahan), Albert P. Injijian, M.D. (Dr. Injijian), and St. Vincents Medical Center (the hospital) to plaintiffs second and third causes of action in the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs contend that defendants demurrers to these causes of action for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, respectively, were sustained improperly. Inasmuch as we conclude that the trial court improperly sustained defendants demurrers to the second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, Court reverse the order of dismissal with directions.
|
A woman leveled accusations of sexual harassment against her famous employer. The famous employer asked for corroboration, and the womans lawyer sent a sexual harassment survey to 600 people who may have worked with that employer. The lawyer also responded to press inquiries about the survey. When the famous employer sued the womans lawyer for defamation, the trial court granted the lawyers special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Court affirm because, as a public figure, the famous employer did not establish a prima facie defamation case against the lawyer.
|
Jerry Bernard Stockdale appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, 240, count 1),[1]as a lesser included offense to the charged assault with deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), and battery with serious bodily injury ( 243, subd. (d), count 2). Defendant admitted having suffered a prior felony conviction within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (a) through (i), and a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of 11 years. Defendant contends that the trial court (1) violated his right to present a defense under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when it excluded evidence that supported the defense version of the case, and (2) erred in excluding nurse record evidence, which defendant sought to use to establish the basis of the nurses expert opinion and restore her credibility. Court affirm.
|
Carlos A. Jackson appeals a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer to his complaint without leave to amend. The ruling was based on the courts conclusion that the relief sought was barred by the statute of limitations, that appellant could not state a cause of action, and that appellant had not shown postconviction relief or actual innocence of his underlying criminal conviction. Court affirm.
|
Appellant Miguel Cruz was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of attempted, premeditated murder in violation of Penal Code[1]sections 187 and 664, and one count of assault with a firearm in violation of section 245, subdivision (a). The jury found true the allegation that appellant personally discharged a firearm in the commission of the attempted murder within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) through (d). The jury also found true the allegations that in the commission of both offenses, appellant personally inflicted great bodily harm within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a) and personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5. The trial court found true the allegations that appellant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12 (the "Three Strikes" law) and 667, subdivision (a), and served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced appellant to a total term of 44 years to life in state prison. Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in admitting evidence to explain the investigating officer's actions in preparing a photographic lineup and failing to declare a mistrial when evidence of appellant's criminal history was elicited. Appellant further contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument and that the trial court erred in failing to suppress tainted identifications. Respondent requests that we modify the abstract of judgment to impose a $20 security fee. As set forth in our disposition, we so order. Court affirm the judgment of conviction in all other respects.
|
Guadalupa Rhaburn instituted this action to set aside a quit claim deed she executed in favor of Devindra Somadhi. The trial court found Rhaburn had shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Somadhi obtained title to the property through fraud. The trial court declared the quitclaim deed recorded by Somadhi null and void. Court affirm the judgment.
|
Defendant Roderick Dwayne Greene appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to seven counts of an eight-count information relating to the manufacture and sale of controlled substances. He contends his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in filing a boilerplate motion to suppress evidence, and the trial court erred in failing to return the search warrant to the prosecution, which denied defendant an adequate record for appellate review. Court affirm.
|
An unmarried couple lived together for over 11 years. When they broke up the man claimed half the condominium the woman purchased during this time. The title was in the womans name. At trial, the man offered financial records to prove he deserved half. He admitted, however, to underreporting his income. The trial court also thought it remarkable the man seemed to remember the basis for every check paid to cash and to [the woman] for the period in question even though some of the checks were written six or seven years ago and no notation or reference is indicated on those checks. Indeed, many of the checks had no bank marks showing they even had been cashed or deposited. The trial court rejected the mans testimony and entered judgment for the woman. Court affirm.
|
Nicolas Shirilla appeals from a judgment of dismissal for failing to bring his case to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., 583.310, 583.360.) He asserts the trial court erred in dismissing his personal injury action because the statute of limitations was tolled by the parties' agreement to arbitrate and the trial court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the lawsuit. There was no such stipulation. Accordingly, Court affirm.
|
Eric V., a minor, appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) entered following an admission that he committed the offense of possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen. Code, 12101, subd. (a)). The court ordered him placed in camp. Appellant claims he did not admit that he committed the offense. Court affirm the order of wardship.
|
The People filed an information charging defendant James Garcia with the first degree murder of Anthony Stafford (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) and alleging that he used a deadly weapon (a knife) to commit the crime (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant testified at trial and admitted having killed Stafford. The issues for the jury were whether defendant acted in self-defense and, if not, whether he was guilty of a lesser homicide crime. The jury convicted him of second degree murder. The trial court, after finding true various prior conviction allegations, sentenced defendant to a term of 36 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding some defense evidence. He further urges the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial by asking one question during his (defendants) testimony. Court find no merit to any of these contentions and therefore affirm the judgment.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023