CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Martin Cadillac Company, Inc. (Martin) appeals from a judgment entered as the result of the trial court granting a special motion to strike brought by defendants John K. Pierson, Leonard B. Ference, Pierson Law Firm, APLC (collectively Pierson) and Cyrus Maloo (Maloo) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, Californias anti-SLAPP[1](Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute,[2]in response to Martins lawsuit against Pierson for malicious prosecution of an underlying personal injury action arising out of a vehicle accident. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Darnell Lamar Smith appeals from a judgment entered after revocation of his probation. Appellants sole contention on appeal is that witness Aaron Carter was not credible in testifying, and therefore, there was insufficient evidence to prove a violation of probation. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant Juan Viera pleaded guilty to felony stalking (Pen. Code, 646.9, subd. (b).).[1] The trial court placed him on probation. After two successive probation violations, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years. Defendant argues that the imposition of the upper term violates Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham) because the three aggravating factors were neither admitted by defendant nor submitted to a jury. We disagree because at least two of the aggravating factors are based on recidivism, and thus fall outside the rule of Cunningham, and those two factors are sufficient to justify the upper term.
Defendant also challenges the imposition of a second restitution fine under section 1202.4, and a $20 court security fee under section 1465.8. The People concede that the second restitution fine is improper. Court reject defendants challenge to the court security fee. Court modify the abstract of judgment to strike the second restitution fine, and otherwise affirm.

Jai Verma appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of grand theft by embezzlement. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a), 508.) He contends (1) his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) the trial court instructed the jurors incorrectly, and (3) the court may have committed an error when imposing a restitution fine. Court reject these arguments and affirm.

As part of a complex real estate transaction involving purchase of a commercial building, appellant signed three promissory notes. Each promissory note was secured by a deed of trust on the property in favor of the noteholders, who included respondents, failed to make any payments on the promissory notes and two noteholders attempted foreclosure.

Court appointed counsel to represent Appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. Court have examined the record and found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Aydelott was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf, and court received a handwritten statement from him on August 4, 2006.
After a full review of the record, the entire file in case number G032781 of which court took judicial notice, appointed counsel's brief and declaration, and the handwritten statement from appellant, court affirm the judgment.

Appellant's appeal was successful, and court included in their opinion a standard provision stating "Appellant is to recover her costs on appeal." Appellant interpreted that as allowing her to recover not only the costs Appellant actually paid, but also the value of those which were waived as a consequence of our order. Target disagreed, and filed a motion to tax costs.

Appellant was convicted of carjacking and the jury found it true that appellant had personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense. Appellant was sentenced to 15 years in state prison, but complains the court erred in excluding evidence appellant offered and restricting his attorney's closing argument. court find no errors and affirm.

Defendant pled no contest to cultivating marijuana. The trial court sentenced him to 90 days in jail and two years' probation. On appeal, appellant contends that his cultivation was a nonviolent drug possession offense and qualified him for probation without incarceration under Proposition 36. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and Appellant, admitted misdemeanor vandalism, Penal Code section 594, subdivision (b)(2)(A), with damage of less than $400, and was ordered to continue on probation, spend 80 hours in the juvenile court work program, spend four days in juvenile hall, and pay victim restitution. After a contested restitution hearing, the trial court set restitution at $1,452.61. Appellant asserts the restitution award is not supported by substantial evidence. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant appeals the revocation of her probation. Appellant contends that insufficient evidence supports the revocation. Court disagree and affirm.

A criminal law decision regarding count I assault on a peace officer likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, $ 245, subd. (c)) with personal infliction of great bodily injury ($ 12022.7, subd. (a)); count II assault on a peace officer likely to produce great bodily injury ($ 245, subd. (c)); count III escape or attempted escape after arrest with force or violence (S 836.6, subd. (c)) with personal infliction of great bodily injury (S 12022.7, subd. (a)); and count IV resisting an executive officer (S 69). As to all counts, the district attorney specially alleged appellant had sustained a prior prison term (S 667.5, subd. (b)).

Defendant was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. In addition, the jury found that defendant committed each crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Defendant appeals, challenging the street gang enhancements and claiming there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the unlawful possession of ammunition. Court affirm.

Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of evading an officer, possession of a controlled substance, and misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found a prior strike and two prior prison term allegations true. Court agree only with appellant's one claim, and in all other respects affirm.