CA Unpub Decisions

The court entered a default in favor of plaintiff after defendants failed to appear. After review of the pleadings and the evidence submitted to support its default prove up, the court entered judgment in favor of two of the three defendants, concluding that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case. Court agree and find the courts judgment was not an abuse of discretion. At oral argument, the parties conceded that neglecting to include the third defendant in the minute order granting judgment to the other defendants was a clerical error. Thus, Court remand for the trial court to amend the judgment appropriately.

A petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on June 2, 2006 by Yegor Gorshkov. A default or uncontested judgment of annulment was filed on September 15, 2006. On March 12, 2007, appellant Anastasia Zakharova filed a motion to set aside the judgment, which the court denied. Zakharova appeals from the May 18, 2007, order denying her motion to set aside the judgment. The order is affirmed.

Appellant Rachael O., natural mother of Kaitlyn C., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. The appeal is based on two contentions: (1) failure to assess Kaitlyns aunt and uncle for placement and (2) denial of her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. (All further statutory references are to this code.) Mother, having failed to address the placement issue in the trial court, waived the issue. Her section 388 petition failed to show significant changed circumstances; nor did it demonstrate that delaying permanency was in her daughters best interest. Court therefore affirm the order.

Defendant James Edward Thomas was sentenced to life in prison upon conviction of first-degree burglary and misdemeanor prowling and peeping. On appeal and by accompanying petition for habeas corpus he contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to present a defense based on the premise that defendants schizophrenia made it impossible to infer beyond a reasonable doubt that when he entered the apartment in question, he possessed the intent to commit theft or rape that was required to convict him of burglary. He further contends that the court erred in sentencing him to a life term consecutive to a five-year sentence enhancement. Court sustain the latter contention and direct a modification of the judgment. Court find the record on appeal insufficient to establish a right to reversal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, but we find a prima facie case for habeas relief. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment as modified, while issuing an order to show cause returnable in the superior court.

Appellant Donald Smith (Mr. Smith) sold his auto parts business to respondent Kohlweiss, Inc. (Kohlweiss). The sale agreement included a covenant not to compete. The trial court found that Mr. Smith had breached the covenant, and granted respondent rescission. Mr. Smith contends that: (1) the covenant was an invalid restraint of trade, and the trial courts statement of decision on that issue is inadequate; (2) in any event, he did not breach the covenant; and (3) Kohlweiss should not have been awarded costs in Mr. Smiths own action against Kohlweiss. Court reject all of these contentions, and affirm the judgment.

Under a negotiated plea bargain, defendant Michael Breck Lemon pleaded no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol and admitted a prior felony strike allegation. He appeals from the trial courts ensuing denial of his motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) asking the court to exercise its discretion to dismiss the prior strike allegation. Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his Romero motion based on a factual finding that is not supported by the evidence. Court find no abuse of discretion, and affirm the judgment.

Johanna Williams shared custody of her two children, A. and B., with their father and her ex-husband, appellant Brett Lee Williams. One day in June 2002, appellant picked up the children from preschool for the weekend. Angry with Johanna because she had not left extra clothing at the preschool for the childrens use over the weekend, appellant drove to Johannas condominium with the youngsters in tow. When appellant arrived at Johannas home, he confronted her and they began to argue. During the argument, one of Johannas neighbors heard Johanna pleading for help, saying, Hes been beating me. Johanna also cried out, He has a gun. Hes going to shoot me. A second neighbor, Anne Koerber, also heard Johanna cry out that appellant had a gun and was beating her. Looking outside and seeing Johanna lying on the ground covered in blood, Koerber called 911.
Brett Lee Williams appeals from the judgment following his conviction for murdering his ex-wife. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Kristine R. Aronsohn, a former Deputy City Attorney, appeals from judgment granted in favor of defendant the City of Los Angeles (the City) in this action for retaliation in violation of the protections for whistleblowers contained in Labor Code section 1102.5. Aronsohn contends the City retaliated against her after she informed her superiors of her suspicions that a police officer had committed perjury. We conclude that Aronsohn failed to raise triable issues of material fact with regard to the Citys proffered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for taking the actions it did. Therefore, Court affirm.

Appellant Josue Salcedo was convicted, following a jury trial, of five counts of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211[1]and five counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm in violation of section 245, subdivision (b). The jury found true the allegation that appellant personally used a firearm in the commission of the robberies within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The jury did not reach a verdict on the allegations that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22. The jury also found true the allegations that appellant used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5. The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of 40 years and 4 months in state prison based on the assault convictions. The trial court selected the upper term of nine years for the count 2 assault conviction plus a 10-year enhancement term for the section 12022.5 allegation. The court sentenced appellant to two years (one-third the mid-term) for each of the remaining four assault convictions, plus an enhancement term of three years and four months for each of the accompanying firearm allegations. The court stayed sentence on the robbery convictions pursuant to section 654. Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that there is insufficient evidence to support the count 1 conviction for the Pereria robbery and that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of theft for that count. He further contends that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to certain testimony by the prosecution's expert witness and that the trial court's selection of the upper term violated his right to a jury trial as set forth in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S.[127 S.Ct. 856]. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.

A jury convicted defendant Rudy Casas of two counts of second degree robbery ( 211),[1]one count of carjacking ( 215, subd. (a)), and one count of assault with a deadly weapon upon a police officer ( 245, subd. (c)). In a bench trial, the court found that defendant had suffered two prior robbery convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) (the Three Strikes law) and section 667, subdivision (a)(1) (five-year enhancement for each qualifying prior conviction). The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 105 years to life. Defendants appeal raises three contentions. The first is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon. The second is that the evidence is insufficient as to one of his Three Strikes prior convictions. The third is that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Court reject all three contentions and therefore affirm the judgment.

Appellant Jane E. Siegel, administrator of the estate of Lawrence Israel, filed a legal malpractice action against the respondents, the firm of Silberberg, Mitchell & Knupp and two of its attorneys, Allan B. Cutrow and Stanley Arenberg. Appellants action is predicated on the preparation by respondents of an amendment to a trust agreement that disposed of the assets of Lawrence Israel and his wife. The trial court sustained respondents demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend on the ground that the statute of limitations barred the action. On appeal, respondents contend among other things that, as a matter of law, appellant was not injured by the preparation and execution of the amendment in question. Court agree and affirm.

Defendant, the Board of Directors of the Antelope Valley Healthcare District, appeals from a judgment issued after the trial court granted the mandate petition of plaintiffs, the City of Palmdale (the city) and the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palmdale (the agency). The trial court ordered defendant to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code,[1] 54950 et seq.) by: in the future conducting open and public discussions about the proposed development of a hospital in Palmdale on an approximately 30-acre site; discussing pending litigation in closed session only if the litigation has been properly identified and described in accordance with the Brown Act; and making and preserving for a one year period an audio recording of all closed sessions. Court affirm the judgment except as to the fifth cause of action.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Court affirm.

Mitchell Ray Brown was convicted of first degree murder, with a special circumstance finding that he committed the murder during a forcible rape. (Pen. Code, 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C).) He was sentenced to state prison for life without the possibility of parole. Brown appeals, claiming evidentiary error, contending he was entitled to presentence credits, and objecting to a $20 fine. Court affirm.