CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Craig T. Byrnes appeals the trial courts order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of respondent Juniors Restaurant, Inc. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing his complaint, which alleged a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act; Civ. Code, 51, subd. (b); 51.5, subd. (a); 52.) Court affirm the trial courts ruling.

This is an appeal from a judgment following a four-day court trial in a case involving a decedents will. It appears that appellant Helen K. McGowan Houston was seeking to have the will of her stepmother probated. Respondent Jan McEveety, the decedents natural daughter, opposed probate contending that the will was procured by the undue influence of appellant and appellants father. After considering the evidence, the trial court ordered the will revoked, finding that the will was procured by the strongest case of undue influence the court had ever seen and that the testimony of appellant was quite flawed.
Appellant has appealed and contends there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment and that the trial court incorrectly applied statutory law. Because we find that appellant has failed to meet her burden on appeal of providing both an adequate appellate brief and an adequate record from which Court can properly review her claims of error, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Marciano Eleodoro Reyes appeals from a judgment of conviction following a guilty plea to one count of mayhem (Pen. Code, 203). He challenges the imposition of the upper term sentence, eight years in state prison, after his probation was revoked. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred in imposing an upper term sentence based upon facts not found true by the jury. Court affirm.

This appeal challenges a stipulated judgment on the ground that it includes terms beyond the scope of the parties stipulation. Court modify the judgment to delete the unauthorized terms and, as modified, affirm.

In this action by plaintiff Luz Abigal Gamboa for quiet title against defendant California State Board of Equalization, plaintiff appeals from an order of dismissal entered after the court sustained the demurrer of defendant without leave to amend. Court reverse the order.

Maurice Van Roberson appeals from an order recommitting him to the Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVP law). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) He challenges the constitutionality of the SVP law. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Miguel Alfonso Amador (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)). Appellants sole contention is that his conviction must be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the sanity phase of his trial. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Sergio E. Minjares appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).) The jury found true the allegations that appellant committed murder while engaged in the commission of robbery, within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17) and that appellant personally used a firearm, within the meaning of sections 1203.06, subdivision (a)(1), and 12022.5, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced appellant to life without possibility of parole, plus a consecutive term of 10 years for the firearm enhancement. Court affirm with modifications.

James H. Disney appeals from a civil harassment restraining order imposed against him pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. He contends the declarations submitted against him were inadmissible, the evidence did not support the imposition of the restraining order and award of statutory attorney fees, and the order is void because it is overbroad and abridges his constitutional rights. Court affirm the order.

After defendants motion to quash a search warrant and suppress evidence was denied, he waived his right to a preliminary hearing and entered a certified no contest plea to one count of cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11358). Among the terms of the plea was a promise that defendant retained the right to review the denial of his motion to suppress on appeal. Court conclude that defendants plea constitutes a waiver of his right to renew his challenge to the search warrant in this appeal, but Court must remand the case to the trial court to give defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

Tiffany Barnfield appeals from a judgment and sentence after a guilty plea. Her court appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Court find no such issues and affirm.

Jeremy Jones and Alonzo Perkins were convicted of one count each of murder, attempted murder, robbery and felon in possession of a firearm with certain personal use allegations found true. In Joness appeal, he claimed errors in the trial courts denial of his motions for self-representation, exclusion of evidence and sentencing, citing Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). Perkinss appeal challenged the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress the surviving victims identification of him as well as the courts evidentiary and sentencing decisions. In 2005, Court affirmed as to both Jones and Perkins.
Our Supreme Court denied Joness petition for review, but the United States Supreme Court granted his petition for writ of certiorari, vacated our opinion and remanded the matter back to us for reconsideration in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. __ [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). Perkins apparently did not seek further review. Upon reconsideration of the Blakely issue as to Jones following Cunningham, Court nevertheless affirm.

Appellants Jennifer and Matthew Fletcher were found guilty, following a jury trial, of one count of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187,[1]subdivision (a). The jury found true the special circumstances allegations that the murder was committed while lying in wait and for financial gain within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(15). The jury also convicted the two of conspiracy to commit murder and various insurance fraud offenses. These convictions all arose from the murder of Jennifer's then husband, Joel Shanbrom. The jury also convicted Matthew of one count of bigamy in violation of section 281, subdivision (b)(3). Both appellants were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Appellants now appeal from the judgments of conviction. Court affirm those judgments.