CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Cristiano Felipe Graca appeals from a judgment of conviction after he pleaded guilty to an offense of domestic violence (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (e)(2)) and admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced him to a four year prison term. Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs are California entities with their principal places of business in California. Defendant IDI Global, Inc. (IDI) is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Utah. Griffith is a Utah resident and IDIs chief executive officer. Clayton is a Utah resident and an IDI shareholder. Clayton is also a shareholder of First Equity Holdings, an entity that is not a party to this action. Ascendiant Securities, LLC (Ascendiant) is an investment banking firm that was involved in a financing transaction between plaintiffs and IDI that is the subject of this action.
The trial court concluded there was insufficient evidence of minimum contacts between Griffith and the State of California, or of Griffiths fraudulent concealment of material information from plaintiffs, as grounds for exercising personal jurisdiction over him. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. The orders granting the motions to quash are affirmed.

In this marriage dissolution case, Lance M. Weagant (Lance)[1]appeals from a judgment on reserved issues, entered five years after the trial court first issued a statement of decision, and from a denial of his postjudgment request for termination of open-ended spousal support for his ex spouse, Ella M. Snow (Ella). Finding no error, Court affirm.

Christopher Nance was terminated from his position as an on-air weatherman at KNBC for repeatedly violating company policy against sexual harassment. He and Christopher Productions, Inc. (together Nance) brought the instant action against his former employer National Broadcasting Company, Inc., KNBC-TV, NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc., and his general manager, Paula Madison (together defendants) seeking damages for wrongful termination on the ground defendants discriminated against him because of his race, religion, and illness. Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment. Court hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a protective order precluding Nances discovery of the personnel files of two NBC employees. Court further hold that defendants carried their burden to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Nances discharge. In opposing summary judgment, Nance was unable to demonstrate a dispute or to present substantive evidence that raises a rational inference that the true cause of defendants action was intentional and unlawful discrimination. The trial court properly granted summary judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A modification decision.

Defendant, Edher Lopez, appeals from: his conviction for first degree burglary (Pen, Code,[1] 459); the jurors finding that another person other than an accomplice was present in the residence at the time of the burglary ( 667.5, subd. (c)); and the trial courts finding that he was previously convicted of a serious felony. ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Defendant argues the trial court improperly found his prior juvenile adjudication to be a serious felony and failed to properly exercise its discretion to strike the prior serious felony conviction. The Attorney General argues additional fees and penalties should have been imposed on the fines. Court affirm with modifications.

Troy Anthony Riggs (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his conviction of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), with a finding of the infliction of great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence ( 12022.7, subd. (e)). He admitted that he had two prior serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)(1)) and that the convictions additionally qualified him for sentencing pursuant to the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 39 years to life, consisting of a term of 25 years to life, enhanced by four years for the infliction of great bodily injury and by two fully consecutive terms of five years, or 10 consecutive years, for the prior serious felony convictions.
He contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion and denied him due process when it found due diligence permitting the use at trial of the victims preliminary hearing testimony, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion and denied him due process when it refused to strike one of his prior serious felony convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). Court find the contentions unpersuasive and affirm the judgment.

Real party in interest and respondent Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (the Department) dismissed plaintiff and appellant Victor Jones (plaintiff) from his employment as a pulmonary physiology technician at a county health facility following a verbal altercation between plaintiff and a female co-worker. Defendant Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (the Commission) sustained the Departments charges that petitioner had verbally and physically threatened the co worker, in violation of the Departments guidelines for employee evaluation and discipline, as well as a written policy prohibiting workplace threats and acts of violence. The Commission initially rejected the hearing officers recommended penalty of discharge and issued a proposed decision imposing a 30-day suspension without pay; however, in its final decision, the Commission sustained plaintiffs discharge.
Plaintiff petitioned for administrative mandamus to compel the Department to reinstate his employment, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the factual findings of the Commission; the Commissions decision sustaining his discharge was improper because it was issued after the hearing officer who conducted the administrative hearing in plaintiffs case became the Commissions Executive Officer; and the penalty of discharge was an abuse of discretion. Court affirm the judgment. Substantial evidence supports the factual findings that were the basis for plaintiffs discipline, and the dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.

Jesus Alvarez Valencia appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of four counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459). In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found that appellant had suffered three prior serious or violent felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d) and 667, subds. (b) - (i)) and three prior serious felonies within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). For the first burglary conviction, he was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life plus five years consecutive for each of the three prior serious felony enhancements. The sentences on the remaining three counts were ordered to run concurrently. He contends one of the enhancements under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) must be reversed as two of the three prior serious felony convictions came from the same case. Respondent agrees. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court reverse one of the three serious prior felony enhancements.

Appellant appeals from the judgment entered following his guilt plea to felony failure to annually update registration. (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(D)) He was sentenced to sixteen months in state prison. The court also restitution fines of $200. ( 1202.4, subd. (b) and 1202.45.) Court affirm.

Margarita S. (Mother) appeals from the dispositional order of the juvenile court denying reunification services as to her two children, Linsey T. and Carlos T., and suspending monitored visits with Linsey. Mother contends that the juvenile court failed to consider relevant evidence in the form of a report by a court-appointed psychologist evaluating Mother and the children, and also contends that the court did not have before it sufficient evidence to suspend visitation with Linsey. Mother is incorrect. Court affirm the order.

Larry Chavira appeals an order committing him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (Pen. Code, 2962, 2966),[1]after his conviction of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 ( 288). We conclude: 1) that Chavira had been offered and declined treatment for his disorder and 2) that substantial evidence supports the finding that he posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others and met the MDO criteria. ( 2962, subd. (a).) Court affirm.

L.F. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her child, Zechariah W. (minor), and choosing adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) The parties agree the order must be reversed because the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to provide adequate notice of the proceedings pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) The DCFS urges this court to limit remand to consideration of the ICWA issue. Mother urges this court to reverse the order terminating parental rights, vacate the findings and orders of the juvenile court, and unconditionally remand the matter with specific directions, including a direction to conduct a new section 366.26 hearing. Court reverse and remand with directions solely to ensure compliance with ICWA.

Two-year-old T.G., through her counsel, seeks writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (l ); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450) of the juvenile courts order setting a hearing under section 366.26 on August 30, 2007. Court deny the writ petition.