CA Unpub Decisions

On April 4, 2006, defendant Nathan Richard Pearce was charged with receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a))[1]and misdemeanor possession of burglars tools ( 466). It was further alleged he had been convicted of two prior felonies precluding him from probation in the absence of a finding of unusual circumstances ( 1203, subd. (e)(4)) and had served two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). On April 20, 2006, defendant pled no contest to receiving stolen property and possession of burglars tools. The special allegations were dismissed. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years of probation. On June 27, 2006, defendant filed a notice of appeal. On September 8, 2006, defendant was notified his appeal might be dismissed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 17(a)(1). On October 13, 2006, the appeal was dismissed.

A jury found Rudy R. Chavez guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a)) (count 1). In addition, the jury found that in the commission of the murder, Chavez personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a). Court conclude that there is sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support the jury's verdict. Court further conclude that the trial courterred in imposing and staying a four year term on the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) sentence enhancement finding. Court direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment by striking the 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement, and affirm the judgment as so modified.

Defendant and appellant, Shon Yates, (hereafter appellant) appeals from an upper term sentence imposed on him after a plea agreement by which he pled guilty to one count of lewd and lascivious acts upon a minor under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) He contends such a sentence violates the principle enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakeley). Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

This court previously affirmed defendants convictions by jury trial for taking of a vehicle without the owners consent (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021.1, subd. (a)),[1]possession of ammunition by a felon ( 12316, subd. (b)(1)), possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364), and receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)), and remittitur was issued on January 19, 2007. (People v. Johnson (Oct. 30, 2006, A111689) [nonpub. opn.] (Johnson I).) Our Supreme Court denied review. On April 16, 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, 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). This court ordered remittitur recalled, and requested supplemental briefing to address the effect, if any, of Cunningham on the issues presented in this appeal. Defendant argues in his supplemental brief that his sentence violated Cunningham. Court disagree and again affirm.

This appeal has been taken from an order that struck an amended cross complaint. Appellant claims that respondents motion to strike was erroneously granted. Court conclude that the appeal is untimely and must be dismissed.

Appellant, the assignee of a judgment and a contractual claim, sued an attorney and his law firm for conspiracy and other causes of action arising from their representation of a client in the allegedly fraudulent transfer of a business. The trial court sustained a demurrer to these claims and dismissed respondents from the action. On appeal, appellant argues his conspiracy claim was not subject to the petitioning requirements of Civil Code section 1714.10 and his complaint stated a valid cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Francisco Dominguez appeals following his conviction by a jury of seven counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 and two counts of oral copulation with a child under 14. Court affirm.

Plaintiff is a former attorney on the staff of the State Bar of California (State Bar). His complaint alleges that he became aware of unethical and improper conduct by judges of the State Bar Court (Bar Court). When his superiors refused to take steps to report this misconduct, plaintiff notified various regulatory bodies. Thereafter, he was subjected to a number of negative employment actions, allegedly in retaliation for speaking out regarding the conduct of the Bar Court judges, and he eventually resigned his position.
Court reverse in part, concluding that plaintiffs claim for defamation against the State Bar and the individual defendants acting in their official capacities is not barred by the federal judgment. Court otherwise affirm.

Thorpe Insulation Company (Thorpe) appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6[1]to enforce settlement agreements in 44 personal injury actions filed against Thorpe due to asbestos exposure. Court affirm.

Appellants Wendell and Claire Laidley (petitioners in the trial court) seek reversal of a judgment in favor of Respondents City of Belvedere et al. (City). The trial court denied appellants petition for writ of administrative mandamus and prayer for declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality of a City ordinance, Belvedere Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20, Architectural and Environmental Design Review, chapter 20.04 Design Review, section 20.04.035 Time Limits for Construction.[1] The City imposed a cumulative penalty of $100,000 on appellants for failure to complete a building project within the time frame specified under the conditions of the building permit. Court affirm.

After a jury trial, appellant Rickey Charles Williams was convicted of the felony offenses of possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and possessing heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), and the misdemeanor offense of false representation of his identity to a peace officer (false representation of identity) (Pen. Code, 148.9, subd. (a)). The jury acquitted him of the misdemeanor offense of using a police scanner to assist in the commission of criminal activity (Pen. Code, 636.5). At a bench trial, the court found true several sentencing enhancement allegations pertaining to prior convictions and previously served prison terms. The court sentenced appellant to a total term of 13 years.
Court reverse the conviction for false representation of identity and strike the sentence imposed thereon, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

The Law Offices of Joseph W. Carcione, Jr., a professional corporation, (the law firm) appeals from a judgment entered in a breach of contract action. It contends, (1) the trial court erred when it prohibited it from cross-examining a witness, (2) the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, and (3) the court erred when it awarded prejudgment interest. Court reject these arguments and affirm.

Defendant and appellant Kevin Eatmon appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following his jury trial conviction for first degree burglary. Appellant contends the trial court erred by giving CALCRIM 359 (Corpus Delicti) and CALCRIM 362 (Consciousness of Guilt). Appellant also contends there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that an occupant was present in the home at the time of the burglary, and that such finding should have been submitted to the jury rather than decided by the court. Court affirm.

The California Correctional Supervisors Organization (CCSO) appeals the denial of its petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel the California State Controllers Office (Controller) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to automatically stop deducting union dues from the salaries of rank and file members of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) when they are promoted to a supervisory classification. Court conclude the CCSO has failed to establish the existence of a ministerial duty that would require respondents to automatically discontinue such member deductions and affirm.