CA Unpub Decisions

Deborah Streicher (Streicher) appeals from an order denying her petition for a writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5), by which she sought reversal of an administrative decision declaring her dog a public nuisance and ordering that the dog be humanely destroyed. The decision was made after a hearing that was held on the basis of her purported breach of her written agreement with the Alameda County Sheriffs Office regarding the dog. Streicher contends: (1) respondents had no authority to conduct an administrative hearing to determine whether she breached the agreement; (2) res judicata barred adjudication of the alleged breach because an earlier proceeding addressed the same incident; (3) collateral estoppel precludes respondents from arguing that they had authority to hold the administrative hearing; and (4) respondents previously conducted a hearing concerning the breach of the agreement and could not conduct a second. Court affirm the order.

Deborah Streicher (Streicher) appeals from an order denying her petition for a writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5), by which she sought reversal of an administrative decision declaring her dog a public nuisance and ordering that the dog be humanely destroyed. The decision was made after a hearing that was held on the basis of her purported breach of her written agreement with the Alameda County Sheriffs Office regarding the dog. Streicher contends: (1) respondents had no authority to conduct an administrative hearing to determine whether she breached the agreement; (2) res judicata barred adjudication of the alleged breach because an earlier proceeding addressed the same incident; (3) collateral estoppel precludes respondents from arguing that they had authority to hold the administrative hearing; and (4) respondents previously conducted a hearing concerning the breach of the agreement and could not conduct a second. Court affirm the order.

John DeMarchi and Leonard Devilbiss were involved in a motorcycle accident, which resulted in a severe cut to Devilbisss left thumb. Although Devilbiss had been able to resume work after the accident, at trial he testified that the thumb injury would limit his future earnings. Among other arguments, DeMarchi contends that the jurys award of future lost earnings was not supported by the evidence, in light of Devilbisss return to work. Court affirm.

This is an appeal from the trial courts judgment on certain reserved issues in the marriage dissolution proceedings of appellant Erin Young (Wife) and respondent Bruce Young (Husband). The trial court entered the judgment after amending its earlier proposed statement of decision, which had found Husband transmuted his separate real property into property held by both parties in joint tenancy. After hearing Husbands objections to the proposed statement of decision, the trial court concluded that no transmutation occurred because there was no writing evidencing Husbands intent to transfer part of his ownership interest in the property to Wife. Wife contends the trial courts changed decision amounted to error, and seeks to vacate the judgment on reserved issues and have the earlier proposed statement of decision entered as the judgment. Court conclude the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that no transmutation had occurred.

Samuel A. Lopez appeals from an antiharassment restraining order. (Code Civ. Proc., 527.6.) The appeal is moot because the order restraining him expired on March 19, 2007. (See, e.g., Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144 [appeal from grant of temporal relief is moot if relief expires before appeal can be heard].) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Washington Mutual Bank (Washington Mutual) timely petitions for review (Lab. Code 5950 & 5952)[1] of the order and opinion denying reconsideration of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which affirmed an award to respondent, Judy Helm.[2] There is no dispute that worker, Judy Helm, sustained compensable injury to her right wrist, right shoulder, neck and back, during the period February 29, 2000 to May 2, 2000. The sole issue is Washington Mutuals contention that the award was improperly calculated using the 1997 schedule for rating permanent disabilities, in effect prior to January 1, 2005. We conclude that the Board should have used the new schedule that went into effect on January 1, 2005. The portion of the decision and opinion after reconsideration applying the 1997 rating schedule to the calculation of permanent disability is annulled. The matter is remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A modification decision.

Dexter Eric Williams appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on count 1 - second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) and count 2 - shooting from a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, 12034, subd. (c)) with, as to each offense, personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b)), personal and intentional discharge of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (c)), and personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury and death (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (d)), with court findings that he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (d)), a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code 667, subd. (a)), and a prior felony conviction for which he served a separate prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced him to prison for an unstayed term of 60 years to life.
In this case, Court reject appellants claim that the trial court erred by failing to instruct on perfect self defense. There was no substantial evidence that when appellant shot and killed the decedent, appellant actually or reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.The judgment is modified by striking the Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), enhancement pertaining to count 2, and, as modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Tyrone Prince Denmark appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of first degree residential burglary with a person present (Pen. Code, 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21)) with admissions that he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (d)), a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (a)), and a prior felony conviction for which he served a separate prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for nine years. Appellant contends that trial and sentencing errors occurred. Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Continental Insurance Co. appeals from a summary judgment on forfeited bond after the trial court denied its motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond. Citing Penal Code section 1305,[1] Continental contends the trial court lost jurisdiction to declare the forfeiture when the criminal defendant-bailee, Elam Yousefi, previously failed to appear at a pretrial hearing. In denying Continentals motion, the trial court found that Yousefi had not been required to appear at that previous hearing, and therefore jurisdiction had not been lost. Substantial evidence supports the trial courts finding. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Erwin M. (Erwin), a minor, found a loaded, sawed-off shotgun in the bushes near his residence, and hid it under the clutter in the side yard of the property. Upon the discovery of the shotgun by a family member and neighbors, the juvenile court detained Erwin and sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, finding true the allegation that Erwin possessed live ammunition in violation of Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (b)(1).[1]

On appeal from the juvenile courts order sustaining the petition, Erwin contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial courts finding that he possessed live ammunition. He also contends that certain of the conditions of his probation, as orally pronounced by the juvenile court, are not accurately reflected in the courts records and that those records must therefore be corrected.
Court hold there is substantial evidence in the record to support the juvenile courts finding that Erwin possessed live ammunition. We agree, however, that the juvenile courts records do not accurately reflect the conditions of probation, as orally pronounced by the court, and that those records must be corrected. Accordingly, Court affirm the order of the juvenile court sustaining the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and direct the juvenile court to correct its records to reflect accurately the conditions of Erwins probation as orally pronounced by the court at the disposition hearing.

Defendants and appellants Paul A. Stabile (Stabile) and Michael J. Mastrovito (Mastrovito) and their attorney Matthew Duncan (Duncan) appeal an order directing the payment of $5,928 in discovery sanctions to plaintiffs and respondents Peggy Rinella and Kirk Rinella (Rinellas) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Because the sanctions were improperly issued on an ex parte basis, the order must be reversed.

Renauldie C. Caliz appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of count 1, carjacking with the use of a firearm (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a); 1203.6, subd. (a)(1)), and count 2, dissuading a witness from making a report to police (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (b)(1)) arising out of the following: on February 4, 2006, appellant forced victim Adrian Toledo to give him his car keys at gunpoint. Appellant also robbed Toledo of his wallet and told him he would kill Toledo and do something to his family if he called the police. Toledo called the police, who apprehended appellant two hours later. Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.