CA Unpub Decisions

The trial court sustained a petition to extend defendant Edward Floress commitment to the state hospital as a sexually violent predator (SVP). The parties entered into a stipulation by which defendant would not contest the petition, the People would not contest defendants petition for conditional release, and defendant could appeal on a single pretrial issue decided against him by the trial court: whether the petition should be dismissed because the Department of Mental Health could not, as the time of trial approached, produce two experts who agreed that defendant satisfied the criteria for continued commitment. Since the departments two experts agreed that defendant satisfied those criteria back when the department forwarded the request for recommitment to the District Attorneythe only stage at which this agreement is statutorily requiredthe trial court was correct to deny defendants motion to dismiss. Court affirm.

Appellant Ruben Valdez contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for violating Penal Code section 246, shooting at an occupied vehicle. In addition, Valdez contends the trial court erred by admitting an excessive amount of evidence of his gang related activities. Court affirm the judgment.<br />
<br />

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450 & 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested 18 month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his son A. Court deny the petition.

Plaintiff Mitchell Flyer appeals from denial of an order denying his posttrial motion for prejudgment interest, claiming the court erred when it found the amount awarded by the judgment against defendants Monaco Coach Corporation and McMahons RV was not liquidated. Court agree and reverse with directions for the court to decide the correct amount of interest to which plaintiff is entitled and add it to the judgment.

The plaintiff brought this lawsuit for defamation and unfair competition after statements were posted about it on an internet message board. These appeals are taken from the trial courts rulings on two related motions: a special motion to strike the plaintiffs complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, brought by two defendants, and a motion to lift the discovery stay, brought by the plaintiff. At issue here is the trial courts grant of the special motion to strike as to one defendant, its denial of the motion as to another defendant, and its refusal to continue the hearing and allow discovery as requested by the plaintiff.
Independently reviewing the rulings on the special motions to strike, we conclude that the trial court should have granted the special motion to strike as to both defendants. As for the courts denial of the plaintiffs discovery motion, we find no abuse of discretion. Based on those conclusions, Court affirm in part and reverse in part.

This is third appeal arising from the dissolution action of appellant Gregory M. Galloway and respondent Suzanne P. Galloway. In the first appeal we determined that the order awarding continuing temporary spousal support of $3,145 per month was based on the erroneous calculation that Gregorys monthly bank deposits averaged $10,000 from September 2001 through March 2002.[2] We reversed the order and remanded the matter for a recalculation of continuing temporary spousal support. (In re Marriage of Galloway(Oct. 20, 2003, H024940) [nonpub. opn.] (Galloway I).)
On remand, a trial was held and the trial court subsequently issued a judgment that included a recalculated award of retroactive temporary spousal support, as well as an award of permanent spousal support and an award of child support. The trial court also ruled, among other things, that the funds in the Marclyn Designs, Inc. checking account and a San Mateo Federal Credit Union checking account were Suzannes separate property; Gregory owed Suzanne $70,523 for the fair rental value of the family residence postseparation; Gregory was not entitled to reimbursement for postseparation payments to Suzannes in home care provider; and Gregory breached his fiduciary duty by taking an item of community property, a tax refund check, without notice. Additionally, the trial court awarded Suzanne $60,000 in attorney fees and costs. Gregory challenges all of these rulings in the present appeal. For reasons that Court explain, Court affirm the judgment.

In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges the award of attorneys fees and costs to the defendant, who prevailed in his special motion to strike the plaintiffs complaint. Finding no abuse of discretion, Court affirm the award.

Theresa P. (mother) and Brett P. (father), the former adoptive parents of one child and former legal guardians of another, appeal from a post-termination restraining order requiring them to stay at least 100 yards away from the children and their foster parents. Appellants contend that the juvenile court denied them due process when it relied on hearsay and did not permit them to cross examine the hearsay declarants. As Court find that substantial evidence supports the restraining order and that parents were not denied due process, Court affirm the juvenile court order.

As a result of an August 2006 domestic violence incident involving defendant Joseph J. Bassaly and his girlfriend, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, a felony (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) and one count of battery ( 242) involving the 11 year old son of defendants girlfriend. Defendant also admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). Defendant was sentenced to a term of two years as to the corporal injury count, with the sentence doubled to four years pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1); he also received a concurrent sentence of 409 days for the battery count. He was given custody credits of 409 days.
Defendant claims on appeal that the abstract of judgment does not properly reflect the application of 409 days of custody credits granted by the court at the sentencing hearing. He also argues that the sentencing court was without authority to enter an order that defendant have no direct or indirect contact with the victim or any of her family members. Court conclude that the abstract should be amended to reflect application of the custody credits and that the no contact order must be stricken. Court strike the no contact order, require that the superior court modify the abstract of judgment, and affirm the judgment as modified.

On March 19, 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari filed by defendant Ceariaco Cabrellis, vacated the judgment, and remanded the matter to this court for further consideration in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). Cunningham concluded that Californias determinate sentencing law violates the Sixth Amendment because it allocates to judges sole authority to find facts permitting the imposition of an upper term sentence. (Id. 127 S.Ct. at p. 870.) Following the California Supreme Courts recent decision in People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 799 (Black II), Court affirm the judgment.

Allie James Bell appeals his jury convictions for first degree murder with special circumstances, and attempted robbery. He argues that one of the trial witnesses identified him as a result of a stationhouse lineup that was impermissibly suggestive, and that he was denied his right to confront the witness because the court excluded certain impeachment evidence bearing on credibility. Court disagree, and affirm.

Robert W. Petty, Lynne I. Petty, and Leisa Petty (the Pettys) appeal a postjudgment order awarding contractual attorney fees to Lake Berryessa Enterprises, Inc., II (LBE) as prevailing parties, following a 17-day court trial. The Pettys and LBE agree that resolution of this appeal depends on the outcome of the related appeal of the judgment entered in favor of LBE in the underlying action. Because we today affirmed the underlying judgment in A111217, Court affirm the attorney fees order contested in this appeal.

This case is before us following the California Supreme Courts order of transfer, with directions to vacate our June 8, 2007 unpublished opinion and reconsider it in light of that courts decisions in People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black II) and People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 (Sandoval). The judgment is affirmed.

An amended information was filed on April 26, 2004, in which appellant was charged with murder (Pen. Code 187[1]). The information alleged the special circumstance of murder while engaged in rape ( 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C)), and murder while engaged in sodomy ( 190.2, subd. (a)17(D)). Also, the information alleged use of a deadly weapon (a plastic bag) in the commission of the offense ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
The jury trial began on March 9, 2006. The People dismissed the rape special allegation at the close of their case in chief. On April 5, 2006, the jury found appellant guilty of first degree murder and returned findings of true on the sodomy felony-murder special allegation and the use of deadly weapon allegation. On July 21, 2006, the trial court denied appellants motion for a new trial and sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole, plus one year. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.