CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Ronald Earl Halsell of first degree burglary, first degree residential robbery, battery with serious injury, assault, and making criminal threats. It found true the allegations that defendant had inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim and that he knew she was 65 years or older when he committed the crimes. In a bench trial, the court found true multiple prior conviction allegations, including those made pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 82 years to life. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Gautam Chakrabarti appeals from orders of the trial court (1) denying his motion for an order requiring plaintiff Parisa Moghaddam to comply with his demand for full or partial notice of satisfaction of judgment, and (2) granting plaintiffs motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. Court dismiss the appeal from the first order and affirm the second order.

Defendant Rusty Lugo appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. Defendant was convicted of the sale of a controlled substance, cocaine base, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), (count 1) and possession for sale of cocaine base, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5 (count 2). The trial court found true the allegation of defendants prior conviction. (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2.) The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a total term of seven years, that is, the mid-term of four years as to count 1, plus three years pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, and as to count 2, the mid term of four years, to be served concurrently with the sentence for count 1.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Rusty Lugo appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. Defendant was convicted of the sale of a controlled substance, cocaine base, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), (count 1) and possession for sale of cocaine base, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5 (count 2). The trial court found true the allegation of defendants prior conviction. (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2.) The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a total term of seven years, that is, the mid-term of four years as to count 1, plus three years pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, and as to count 2, the mid term of four years, to be served concurrently with the sentence for count 1.
The judgment is affirmed.

This appeal concerns an interpretation of the Carmack Amendment, a federal law governing the liability of interstate motor carriers. Court conclude that the law does not apply when an imposter purporting to be an interstate carriers employee steals goods before the carrier receives them. The goods never came into the interstate carriers possession: the carrier did not provide a bill of lading reflecting its receipt of the goods and memorializing the terms of the transportation agreement. The jewelry seller who sustained the loss in this case has alleged a viable negligence claim under state law based on the interstate carriers failure to implement adequate security measures.

Plaintiff Tim Simpson appeals from the trial courts denial of his petition for writ of mandate (Petition) for relocation benefits after plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with the Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency (Agency). Court affirm.

Gregory S. Young sued Marion Nakao for breach of contract and served her with the complaint. Nakao did not respond to the complaint despite multiple warnings from Youngs counsel concerning the progress of the proceedings and the consequences of her failure to respond. As a result, Young obtained a default judgment against Nakao. Seven months after receiving notice of entry of the default judgment, Nakao moved to set aside the judgment and to quash service of the summons and complaint. The trial court granted both motions. Court reverse because Nakaos motion was untimely and she did not establish extrinsic fraud or mistake.

Plaintiffs Yogesh and Ranjan Goradia unsuccessfully sued defendant Lirio Vega in an effort to foreclose on a deed of trust on residential property in Rancho Palos Verdes. The Goradias appeal and contend the trial court erred during this nonjury trial because it should have allowed them to recall as a witness Vega, who had been declared an adverse witness (Evid. Code, 776) and had testified during a prior court session. Court find the trial court erred in precluding recall of Vega, the party from whom the Goradias sought to establish delinquency in payments and thus the requisite element for a judicial foreclosure. The court should have permitted recall of the witness because, in the nonjury trial of a civil suit, the party against whom judgment is sought after presentation of its case shall have had an opportunity to present additional evidence to rebut evidence deemed adverse to that party. (Code Civ. Proc., 631.8, subd. (a), italics added.) The trial courts discretion was thus constrained by statute, and its ruling prejudicially precluded testimony establishing a requisite element of judicial foreclosure, because the Goradias presented no evidence that Vega missed any payments due on the deed of trust. The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial or other appropriate disposition. The Goradias are entitled to costs on appeal.

A jury convicted defendant Marquiest Leon Murphy of two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a) counts one and two). The jury also found true an enhancement allegation as to each count that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury to a person other than an accomplice (id., 12022.53, subd. (d)). In 2004, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for two consecutive terms of 25 years to life and a determinate term of 11 years four months. The determinate term was based on an upper term of nine years on count one because of numerous prior convictions and two years four months (one third the midterm) on count two.
The order recalling the remittitur is vacated; the remittitur shall reissue on our decision affirming the judgment.

Codefendants Kinson Her, a juvenile, and Houa Lao were tried together as adults and found guilty by a jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)), premeditated attempted murder ( 664/187, subd. (a)) and discharging a firearm from a vehicle ( 12034, subd. (d)), with true findings as to each count that they caused great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subd. (d)), discharged a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (c)), and committed the offense to benefit a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also found as a special circumstance that defendants intentionally discharged a firearm from a motor vehicle with intent to inflict death. ( 190.2, subd. (a)(21).) Defendants each received aggregate state prison terms of life without the possibility of parole, supplemented by an indeterminate consecutive term of 25 years to life, plus 20 years. In these consolidated appeals, defendant Her claims instructional, evidentiary and sentencing errors and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions and enhancements. Defendant Lao focuses solely on instructional errors.
Finding no trial error, we shall affirm both convictions. However, owing to his young age at the time of the offense, defendant Hers life without parole prison term was unlawful, and Court modify the judgment accordingly.

Aaron A., a minor, was charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. Following a combined jurisdictional hearing and motion to suppress evidence,[1]which the juvenile court granted in part, the court sustained the charge of robbery, but not the conspiracy charge. The minor was committed to the Sacramento County Boys Ranch with various probationary conditions.
On appeal, the minor contends (1) the juvenile court erred when it refused to suppress both his in-field and in-court identifications, and without these identifications the remaining evidence was insufficient to sustain the robbery charge, (2) that even if the foregoing identifications are not excluded the evidence is insufficient to support the robbery finding, and (3) various conditions of probation imposed by the court must be modified. Court reject the first two contentions, however, Court conclude some, but not all, of the challenged probation conditions must be modified. Accordingly, Court make the modifications.

D.D., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant contends the order of termination was erroneous because she did not abuse her child, she complied with the case plan adopted by the court and guardianship was the appropriate permanent plan. Court affirm.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to attempted first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 664/459) and was sentenced to state prison for two years. He appeals, contending the trial court erred in failing to rule on his request to withdraw his plea and failing to appoint substitute counsel to investigate and pursue a motion to withdraw his plea. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Travis Earl Niles pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon. On January 19, 2007, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years on the assault count by reason of [his] continued or [his] recently established anti social behaviors. Because we cannot determine whether the trial court intended its reference to defendants anti social behaviors to be a reference to defendants prior convictions a legally sufficient aggravating circumstance or to something else that might have been a legally insufficient aggravating circumstance, Court remand for resentencing.