CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Christopher Alex Reinoso challenges his second degree murder conviction on the ground the trial court erred by excluding expert psychological testimony regarding his mental defects and disorders and by responding to a jury question regarding appellants mental instability in a manner that precluded the jury from considering the effect of his mental defects and disorders with respect to the element of implied malice. Court conclude the trial court prejudicially erred by completely excluding the expert testimony.

Jonathan Ming Chiu appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 1--first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) with personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b)), personal and intentional discharge of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (c)), and personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing death (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court sentenced him to prison for 50 years to life. Appellant claims the trial court committed instructional errors. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Steven Sanders appeals from a judgment after a jury trial in which he was convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury on a former cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant admitted one prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a); one prior serious felony conviction (strike) within the meaning of Penal Code section 1170.12; and two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to conduct a proper inquiry into his allegations of his counsels ineffective representation. We conclude the trial court did not err. Defendant also contends the sentencing court erred in imposing the upper term based on factors not found true by the jury. Court initially remanded for resentencing. In light of intervening authority, we have granted rehearing and now affirm.

Carl Lindstrom and Victoria Scott appeal summary judgments in favor of Hunt Enterprises, Inc. (Hunt Enterprises), and Donald Hunt. Hunt Enterprises and Hunt appeal the denial of their motion for attorney fees against Lindstrom. Lindstrom, Scott, and Patti Zamora sued Hunt Enterprises and Hunt alleging various counts relating to sexual harassment in employment, wrongful discharge, retaliation, and failure to pay wages.
Lindstrom and Scott contend the evidence fails to establish as a matter of law that Lindstrom was an independent contractor rather than an employee. They also contend the order requiring Scott to authorize the release of medical records was an abuse of discretion, the court did not strike her claims for emotional distress, and she is not precluded from proving damages. We conclude that the evidence fails to establish as a matter of law that Lindstrom was not an employee, and that the summary judgment against Lindstrom must be reversed. Court also conclude that the plaintiffs have shown no error in the summary judgment against Scott. Court conclude that the defendants appeal from the order denying them an award of attorney fees as prevailing parties on the complaint by Lindstrom is moot, and therefore will dismiss the appeal from that order.

Richard Leon Sanders appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 1 - first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459), and two counts of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496; counts 2 & 3) with admissions that he suffered two prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (a)) and three prior felony convictions for which he served separate prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for 36 years to life. Appellant claims his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

On March 9, 2006, Ernesto Castro was at a bus stop on the corner of Manchester and Avalon in Los Angeles. Appellant and Ron M. were also present at the bus stop. Ron came up from behind Castro and pressed a knife, or a knife like object, against his back and instructed him to hand over his money to appellant. Appellant extended his arm and received $8 dollars from Castro. During the incident, appellant did not speak to either Ron or Castro. After receiving the money, appellant and Ron fled the scene. The police later apprehended appellant with a $5 dollar bill and three singles in his pocket. During a police show up, the victim identified appellant as the person to whom he was forced to give his money. Appellant, who was a minor, was placed under arrest and detained in juvenile hall. Following the arrest, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions section 602 alleging appellant committed second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. The juvenile court found appellant committed second degree robbery as an aider and abettor and found the offense was a felony. At the disposition hearing, the court declared appellant a ward of the court under section 602, set a maximum confinement term of five years, and ordered appellant placed home on probation subject to various conditions. Appellant appeals from the judgment and raises five issues on appeal.

Juan M. Martinez appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of continuous sexual abuse, count 1 (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a)), three counts of forcible rape, counts 2 - 4 (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2)); and committing a lewd act upon a child, count 5 (Pen. Code, 288(a)) with the finding that he committed the offenses charged in counts 1 and 5 by the use of force, violence, duress, menace and fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.066, subd. (a)(1). He was sentenced to the upper term on all counts, 16 years for count 1 and eight years each for counts 2 through 5 for a total of 48 years. He contends pursuant to Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S. Ct. 856] (Cunningham)reversal of his aggravated sentence and imposition of the midterm sentence are required. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Roosevelt Wardell Jr. (Wardell), in propria persona, appeals a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent County of Los Angeles (County) and various County employees. The undisputed evidence establishes Wardell failed to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the government claims act. (Gov. Code, 900 et seq.) Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

This is an appeal from an order awarding attorney's fees to respondent United Escrow Company. Court affirm.

Appellant K.B. (minor), a 17-year-old, was charged with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 664, 211) pursuant to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition filed by the People. The juvenile court sustained the petition on both counts. It placed the minor on home probation, set the maximum term of confinement at seven years, and awarded 33 days predisposition credit. The minor appeals on the following grounds: (1) The evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile courts finding that the minor committed robbery; and (2) the juvenile courts probation conditions prohibiting the minor from associating with certain persons and going to certain places are constitutionally vague and should be modified. Court modify probation condition Nos. 15 and 21 to include a knowledge requirement. In all other respects, the judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

Ahsan Mohiuddin (appellant) challenges a trial court order sustaining the demurrer of respondent City of Gardena (the City) without leave to amend and dismissing appellants complaint. Court affirm.

Mashid Salami and Ali Reza Khaleghi Moghadam appeal from the order denying in part their special motion to strike a cross complaint against them. Court find no error and affirm the order.

Jason Arlan Hill appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 1 false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, 236), and count 2 - first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459). The court sentenced him to prison for four years eight months. Appellant claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Court affirm the judgment.