CA Unpub Decisions

Eddie Lynn Peterson, Sr. (Peterson), appeals his conviction and sentence for drug possession with intent to sell. He contends that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence, or alternatively, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to raise a specific objection to the hearsay evidence. Peterson also contends that his sentence to the upper term was unconstitutional. For the following reasons, Court affirm.

On December 29, 2005, the Kings County District Attorney filed information No. 05CM5115 in superior court charging appellant Maurice Antonio Williams as follows: count Iunlawful possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378); and count IImisdemeanor unlawful possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b)). The district attorney specially alleged appellant had sustained a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). On January 3, 2006, appellant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty to the substantive counts, and denied the special allegations. The judgment is affirmed.

In this wrongful death case, a jury returned a verdict awarding the plaintiffs (the wife and children of the decedent) $961,899 in economic damages and $1 million in noneconomic damages. The trial court subsequently granted the plaintiffs motion for new trial (Code Civ. Proc., 657)[1] due to, among other things, jury misconduct and attorney misconduct. The defendants appeal contending the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion for new trial. The plaintiffs filed a protective cross appeal from the original judgment contending jury misconduct and attorney misconduct led to an inadequate damages award. Court conclude the new trial order was not an abuse of the trial courts discretion and affirm the order. Accordingly, Court need not consider the issues raised in the plaintiffs cross appeal.

H. R. (minor) appeals from a judgment declaring him a ward of the juvenile court based on his admission that he committed an act of vandalism. The minor admitted the petitions vandalism allegation after the court denied his motion to suppress evidence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 700.1.) He contends the court erred in denying the motion because the police detained him without reasonable cause. Since his argument lacks merit, Court affirm the judgment.

Parents Teresa W. and Lloyd G. appeal from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders removing their daughters, now 18-year-old S. G. and now 10-year-old Domonique G., from their custody. They claim there was insufficient evidence to support the findings that their failure to protect the children subjected them to actual or a substantial risk of serious physical harm. Mother also claims the evidence did not support removal because there were reasonable alternatives. Court disagree and affirm.

The juvenile court entered an order making the three young daughters of Natalie S. (mother) and Ramon D. (father) dependents of the court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (g). (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Mother and father appeal the jurisdiction order. We affirm. There was sufficient evidence supporting the juvenile courts findings that the children were at a substantial risk of harm or of sexual abuse. Mother and father had been arrested for kidnapping and committing lewd acts on a 15 year old female neighbor. The maternal grandfather, who had sexually abused mother when she was a young girl, was living with the family.

These consolidated appeals arise out of a dispute regarding the use of formulas for skin-care products. Allure Cosmetic USA, Inc., (Allure) manufactured products for Jan Marini Skin Research, Inc. (JMSR). Allure sued Gurpreet S. Sangha, a former partner in Allure, and G. S. Cosmeceutical USA, Inc. (GSC), the company Sangha formed after leaving Allure, alleging Sangha recruited Allures clients, denigrated the company, and stole company secrets. In another action, JMSR sued Allure, its owner Sam Dhatt, Stephen Kohler (a former employee of JMSR), and several companies related to Allure, contending they had improperly appropriated and used the formulas for JMSRs products to make products for other clients. Allure and Dhatt cross complained against, among others, JMSR and Sangha. The actions were consolidated for trial. Kohler, Dhatt, Allure, and the related companies appeal the judgments entered against them in JMSRs action. Sangha and GSC appeal the judgment against them in Allures and Dhatts actions. Court affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Creditors Trade Association, Inc., dba Great Western Collection Bureau (CTA), Gary E. Looney (Looney), and Fund Recovery Services, Inc., dba Accounts Receivable Management (Fund), appeal from the denial of their anti SLAPP motions to strike the complaint of respondents Sharon Chiu (Chiu) and Christina Seelye (Seelye). (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16.) Appellants contend that Chiu and Seelye failed to establish a probability of prevailing on their first two causes of action, and that the wrongdoing alleged as the basis for those claims was subject to the litigation privilege set forth in Civil Code section 47. Chiu and Seelye respond that the appeal is now moot because they dismissed their complaint during the pendency of the appeal. They also urge that: their complaint was not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute because appellants alleged wrongdoing was not constitutionally protected; the trial court correctly found that Chiu and Seelye had established a probability of prevailing on the merits of their claims; and the litigation privilege does not apply. In addition, they argue, if the trial courts order is reversed they should not be liable for attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute.
By way of cross-appeal, Chiu and Seelye further contend that the trial court erred in dismissing as moot their third cause of action, which sought to set aside a default judgment entered in an underlying proceeding. Court reverse the trial courts order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant Paul Patrick Jolivette appeals from his conviction on three counts of rape and multiple other offenses committed over a period of approximately nine months during which he repeatedly molested the 13-year-old daughter of his wifes half sister. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction of displaying harmful material to a minor and argues that the trial court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction and in denying his motion for a new trial. Although the evidence presented in support of the new trial motion is troublesome, Court affirm the judgment and leave any remaining questions for consideration upon application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Defendant Lawrence OSullivan appeals from a judgment convicting him of three counts of assault with a knife on a police officer and counts of attempted robbery and misdemeanor petty theft. Defendant appeared in propria persona at trial but is represented by appointed counsel on appeal. He contends that the court violated his right to due process by refusing his request to appoint advisory counsel, failing to provide adequate access to the law library, and unfairly limiting the scope of his testimony. He also contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his assault convictions and that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte with the lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon (not on a police officer). Court affirm.

Luis B. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court and committing him to the Camp Glenwood Program. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Defendant was represented by counsel. There was no error in the disposition. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The order is affirmed.

Defendant and appellant Sergio Chan-Tapia appeals his sentence, imposed after he pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and kidnapping and admitted a grievous bodily injury (GBI) enhancement to the kidnapping charge. Appellant contends the three-year GBI enhancement to his consecutive sentence for kidnapping violates Penal Code section 654 because it amounts to double punishment for manslaughter. Appellant also contends the superior court erred by imposing a full, three year sentence for the GBI enhancement. Because we agree the three year sentence was incorrectly calculated, Court remand.

Defendant Mohammed Zafrullah Khan argues that the cumulative effect of three purported instances of prosecutorial misconduct during his jury trial requires reversal of the judgment. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Appellant appeals from a summary judgment entered against him on his complaint against respondent, his former superior at a Safeway store in San Francisco. That complaint alleged, among other things, slander, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellant appeals only from the trial courts dismissal of the latter two causes of action. Court affirm.