CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging multiple defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to defraud them of the equity in their property. The trial court sustained the defendants demurrer without leave to amend on statute of limitations and other grounds. Plaintiffs appeal. Court reverse.

A modification decision.

Plaintiff 9901 Alameda, LLC, appeals from a judgment after court trial in favor of defendant Shama, LLC, in an action for specific performance and related claims. The principal issue, which the court determined in defendants favor, was whether defendant legitimately terminated the escrow. The courts holding was based upon a related conclusion, that plaintiff had disapproved an environmental contingency in the contract. Court conclude, however, that under the undisputed evidence plaintiff did not disapprove this contingency, and defendants termination of the escrow was unjustified improper.

After the 2003 wild fires destroyed the dwellings of homeowners, they filed claims under their homeowners policies. Their insurers later offered to renew their policies for the same coverage limits and premiums, even though the homes were total losses and the homeowners had not rebuilt them. After paying their premiums, the homeowners filed class actions against their insurers alleging the full premiums charged for their nonexistent dwellings violated Californias Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq.) (the UCL). The trial court sustained the insurers demurrers and dismissed the actions. Court affirm.

Defendant Smith DeJesus Penarojas appeals his conviction on one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) with a true finding he personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b).) On appeal he contends that the trial court erred in failing to order a competency evaluation pursuant to Penal Code sections 1368 and 1369;[1] in finding he was not incompetent based upon ex parte statements; in putting him in a stealth belt without cause, which forced defendant to absent himself from the courtroom; and in denying his motion to represent himself and failing to continue the matter to accommodate his request. Defendant further contends his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the ex parte statements. Court affirm.

In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent Scottman D. Wall, the owner of a condominium unit in the 40-unit Granville Towers building in the City of West Hollywood (City). In his verified complaint against defendant and appellant Granville Towers Home Owners Association (HOA), Wall alleged the HOA refused to permit him to use a second parking space in the building, despite Walls having been granted an easement for two parking spaces. Wall sought injunctive relief and damages. The trial court ruled Wall was legally entitled to a favorable judgment because he was the owner of a parking easement that originated in the 1988 grant deed to the first owner of Walls unit, Zenon Kesik, and the easement had not been abandoned. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with 20 counts of felony vandalism of buses belonging to the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). He pleaded no contest to three counts. Defendant entered into a Harvey waiver,[1] and was sentenced to five years of probation and 500 hours of graffiti removal. The court further ordered defendant to pay MTA restitution in the amount of $34,814 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4. Defendant appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to justify the trial courts restitution order. We hold there was insufficient evidence to support a portion of the restitution order, and direct that the order be modified to reflect an award of $30,814.

The jury convicted defendant Daquan Ramone Houston of four counts of second degree robbery with use of a firearm and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, 211, 12022.53, subd. (b), 12021, subd. (a)(1).) The jury also found that defendant committed these crimes in furtherance of a criminal street gang. ( 186.22.) Court affirm.

Dawn M. and Bryce H., parents of Skyler H., appeal the juvenile courts termination of their parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) and the courts denial of Dawns petition under section 388. Court affirm.

A jury found defendant John Salazar guilty of the second degree robbery[1] of Thuy Tran (Pen. Code, 211).[2] The jury deadlocked on the allegations that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun ( 12022.53, subd. (c)) and personally used a handgun ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). In a bifurcated court trial, four prior felonies were found true under the three strikes law ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and section 667, subdivision (a)(1) (serious felony priors). Seven prior prison term allegations ( 667.5, subdivision (b)) were also found true. After striking five prior prison term allegations, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 47 years to life, calculated as 25 years to life on the robbery conviction pursuant to the three strikes law, plus a total of 20 years for the four serious felony priors and two additional years for the prior prison terms.
Defendant contends the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by permitting him to represent himself without adequate warnings as required by Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). Defendant further contends the trial courts exclusion of his proffered impeachment of Tran deprived him of his constitutional rights to present a defense and confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. Defendant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it excused juror
number one based on a finding of bias. Court conclude the trial court properly advised defendant of the risks and dangers of self representation, reasonably exercised its broad discretion to exclude irrelevant evidence, and properly discharged juror number one for concealment and bias. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Jose Mendoza appeals from the judgment in favor of respondent Daniel Mellinkoff, entered after Mellinkoff's motion for summary judgment was granted. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Tu Luong Hua of two counts of first degree murder with special circumstances and use of a firearm. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(3) [multiple murders], (15) [lying in wait]; 12022.53, subd. (d).)[1] Defendant received two consecutive sentences of life without parole for the murders and two consecutive terms of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancements. Defendant contends on appeal that his taped confession should have been excluded, the prosecutor committed misconduct, his trial counsel was ineffective, and that numerous CALCRIM instructions are erroneous and misleading. Court affirm.

Respondent Conchita Salveron rented an apartment in the City of Baldwin Park from appellant Cao Ton. Respondent Jocette Salveron, Conchita's adult daughter, also lived in the unit. In September 2003, when only Jocette was at home, there was a fire in the premises. Jocette subsequently sued Ton for personal injury, alleging that she was injured when she jumped from the living room window to escape the fire. Ton cross-complained against both respondents for negligence, contending that Jocette's negligence caused the fire. Trial was to the court, resulting in a judgment in Jocette's favor in the amount of $55,995, and judgment for respondents on the cross-complaint. On this appeal Ton contends that neither judgment is supported by the evidence. Court affirm.