CA Unpub Decisions

In these three consolidated appeals, plaintiffs and appellants LHO Grafton Hotel, L.P. (Grafton), Mondrian Holdings LLC (Mondrian), and SOS Save the Sunset Strip Coalition (Coalition) appeal judgments denying their petitions for writs of administrative mandate, wherein they sought to overturn a decision by defendants and respondents City of West Hollywood (City) and the West Hollywood City Council approving a development project by real parties in interest and respondents Sunset Millennium Associates, LLP (Millennium Associates) and Apollo Real Estate Advisors, LP (Apollo).
The essential issue presented is the adequacy of the projects environmental review.
Court conclude the environmental impact report (EIR) adequately analyzed the impacts of the project and that the statement of overriding considerations is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the judgments are affirmed.

Thomas Bradley Corey was convicted of one count of commercial burglary and one count of grand theft, after which he admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, 459, 487, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b) (i).) He was sentenced to state prison for a term of six years. Corey appeals, claiming there were evidentiary and sentencing errors. Court affirm.

The California State Board of Pharmacy (Board) inspected the inventory of drugs at a pharmacy as part of an investigation into whether certain drugs were being counterfeited or diverted. The inspector discovered that a substantial amount of a particular drug, worth more than $1.4 million, was missing from the inventory. When asked about it, the pharmacist explained that he had taken the drug to his home for safekeeping while he upgraded the pharmacys security system to include a motion detector.
The Board initially fined the pharmacist and the pharmacy $5,000 each, contending that the transfer of the drug to the pharmacists home violated the Pharmacy Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, 4000 et seq.; all further section references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise indicated.) Eventually, after an administrative appeal, the Board reduced each fine to $1,000. The pharmacist and the pharmacy (plaintiffs) filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the trial court, contending they had not violated the Pharmacy Law and, even if they had, the $1,000 fines were excessive. The trial court denied the petition.
Court conclude that the Board correctly determined that plaintiffs violated the Pharmacy Law by transferring the drug to the pharmacists home and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in imposing the reduced fines.

Defendant and appellant Donald Adams appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for possession of marijuana for sale and possession of a controlled substance, ecstasy, for sale. Adams was sentenced to a prison term of 13 years. Adamss sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his Romero motion. Court affirm.

In February 2003, plaintiff Church of Christ in Hollywood (Church) obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting an expelled member, defendant Lady Cage Barile, from entering Church property. In May 2006, Cage Barile filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on the ground that, by statute, an injunction shall have a duration of not more than three years. (Code Civ. Proc., 527.6, subd. (d); further section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) The trial court denied the motion, stating that the injunction was not governed by section 527.6 but by section 533, which permits the dissolution of an injunction if there has been a change in the facts or the law or if the ends of justice would be served thereby. The trial court found that Cage Barile had not made a sufficient showing under the applicable statute. Court agree with the trial court and affirm.

Appellant Dominique B. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, after a finding he committed second degree attempted robbery. The juvenile court placed appellant on probation with several conditions, including one requiring appellant to maintain satisfactory grades in school. On appeal, appellant contends: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the finding he committed attempted robbery; and (2) the condition of satisfactory grades is unconstitutional as to appellant. We hold that substantial evidence supports the trial courts ruling. Court further find the probation condition to be proper. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Appellant appeals from judgments sentencing him to prison after his probation was revoked. His sole assignment of error is that the trial courts finding that he violated a condition of probation was not supported by substantial evidence. As Court conclude the finding was supported by substantial evidence, and that appellant has failed to meet his burden to establish an abuse of discretion, Court reject his contention, and affirm the judgments.

Ernesto M. (Father) appeals from a jurisdictional order declaring his sons Aaron M. (born in January 1994) and Sebastian M. (born in November 1991) and his step daughter J.M. (born in March 1989) dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), (d) (sexual abuse of J.M. by Father), and (j) (abuse of sibling). Father also appeals from the dispositional order removing the children from parental custody. Court reject Fathers challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and affirm the orders.

The sentencing in this case is before us for the second time. (See People v. Fuller (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1336 (Fuller I).) For the reasons explained below we modify the judgment to strike the one year prior prison term enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and affirm the judgment as modified.

The issue in this appeal is whether, after excising the alleged intentional or reckless misstatements from the search warrant affidavit, a finding of probable cause is still justified. We find that the evidence remaining in the affidavit is sufficient to find probable cause. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of discharging a firearm into an occupied motor vehicle (Pen. Code, 246) and found true the allegation that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The jury deadlocked on an attempted murder charge, which was then dismissed. Sentenced to 15 years to life (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)(4)(B)), defendant appeals. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, the trial court erred in refusing instructions on defense of others and necessity, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no prejudicial error, Court affirm.

Defendant Keith Allen Russell pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and admitted to prior drug convictions (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (d)) and being armed with a firearm in the commission of a drug offense (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a two-year middle term for possession of methamphetamine, two 3-year terms for the prior convictions, and a four-year term for the firearm enhancement for a total term of 12 years in prison. The court also imposed a laboratory analysis fee of $157.50, a restitution fine of $2,400, and a stayed $2,400 parole revocation fine. Two hundred ninety-four days of credit (196 actual time and 98 days good conduct) were awarded. On November 12, 2005, around 11:17 p.m., defendant was subjected to a traffic stop for having no front license plate on his car. He was found to be on probation and officers searched the car, finding 85.3 grams of methamphetamine, 19.4 grams of marijuana, drug paraphernalia, over $300 in cash, and a loaded .22-caliber firearm. After being given a Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694] warning, defendant said he frequently [a]llowed the Mexicans to use his vehicle to make runs to Turlock, California in exchange for money and dope. He admitted owning the marijuana, but denied knowing about the methamphetamine or the firearm.Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury found defendant Patrick Devon Blanks guilty of selling a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). The court denied defendants motion for new trial (Pen. Code, 1181; undesignated section references are to the Penal Code) and sentenced him to the middle term of four years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict, and the trial courts denial of his motion for new trial constituted reversible error. Court affirm the judgment.

During an argument, defendant John Wayne Buckley, Jr. struck his wife several times in the jaw and cheek, causing bruising on her jaw and a cut on the inside of her mouth.

Defendant was charged with inflicting corporal injury on a spouse resulting in a traumatic condition, having previously been convicted of a similar offense. (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (e); undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.) He pled guilty to that charge in exchange for a stipulated upper term sentence of five years, execution of which was suspended during a grant of probation conditioned, in part, upon his completion of a one-year residential drug rehabilitation program. The court also ordered that defendant pay for and successfully complete a batterers treatment program, and pay various fees and fines, including a $400 fee payable to the domestic violence fund ( 1203.097, subd. (a)(5)), a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)) plus a ten percent collection fee, a $200 probation revocation restitution fine, stayed pursuant to section 1202.44, a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8) and a $20 monthly fee for the cost of probation services. ( 1203.1b.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.