CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Corwin Anthony Contursi appeals an order granting a permanent injunction prohibiting him from harassing plaintiff David Sean McKinley and his son Joshua (Josh). On appeal, Contursi appears to contend the trial court erred by: (1) excluding third party declarations and other evidence; and (2) not continuing the evidentiary hearing. He also argues that documents he obtained after the hearing show McKinley made material misrepresentations to the court.
Court affirmed.

Plaintiff Corwin Anthony Contursi appeals an order denying his petition for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants David Sean McKinley and his son Joshua (Josh) from harassing him. On appeal, Contursi appears to contend the trial court erred by: (1) excluding third party declarations and other evidence; and (2) not continuing the evidentiary hearing. He also argues that documents he obtained after the hearing show McKinley made material misrepresentations to the court. Court affirmed.

A jury convicted Rick Armand Lyman of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. He appeals, contending the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence as the fruit of an illegal search, and in failing to dismiss a prior strike conviction. Court reject his contentions and affirm the judgment

In 2003, Daniel and Shilin Hale separated after a seven-year marriage and, in March 2004, a judgment incorporating a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered terminating their marriage. The MSA resolved property division and custody issues, imposed family support and child support obligations on Daniel, and resolved other matters. In late 2005 Daniel filed an Order to Show Cause (OSC) seeking to reduce his support obligations and alter the custody arrangement. On June 20, 2006, the court granted Daniel some, but not all, of the relief sought by his OSC, including a reduced amount for spousal and child support.
In July 2006 Daniel filed another OSC (the July OSC) seeking an order that, among other things, would declare the June 20 order reducing his child and spousal support obligations retroactive to December 2005. The court's September 2006 order denied these requests and Daniel timely appealed the September 2006 order entered in response to the July OSC.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Priscilla G. appeals findings and orders entered at the initial stage of the permanency planning hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, including the denial of her section 388 petition. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
Priscilla G.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

Tina H. seeks review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Tina contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the Agency provided reasonable services. Court conclude that the court's finding of reasonable services is supported by substantial evidence, and deny the petition.

A jury convicted defendant Thomas DeWayne Johnson of one count of kidnapping to commit rape/oral copulation (Pen. Code,[1] 209, subd. (b)(1)), one count of rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)), and one count of oral copulation by force. ( 288a, subd. (c)(2).) The jury found true the enhancement allegations that the victim had been kidnapped and the movement substantially increased her risk of harm. ( 667.61, subd. (d)(2).) Defendant admitted he had two prior serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)), and two prior strikes. ( 667, subds. (c) & (e).)

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed inadmissible identity evidence and refused to strike his priors. He also alleges that his 185-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and the imposition of two life sentences for two sex offenses committed against one victim on one occasion was error. Court conclude that the trial court was correct in admitting identity evidence and denying defendants Romero motion. Court also conclude that defendants sentence was not cruel and unusual. However, Court find that defendant can only be sentenced to a single life term for only one of the strike sex offenses he was convicted of, hence Court reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Matthew Steven Cross appeals from his conviction of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a), (count 1)) and two counts of felony vehicle theft with a prior vehicle theft conviction ( 666.5, subd. (a); Veh. Code, 10851 (counts 2 and 3).) Defendant contends that through both instructional error and error in response to jury inquiries, the trial court misled the jury into convicting him based on an erroneous standard of aider and abettor liability, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination of every element of the charged offense, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Defendant further contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike one of defendants strike priors. Court find no error, and Court affirm.

Defendant Riad Jacob Khouri appeals the trial courts order assessing him for the costs of a presentence probation investigation and attorneys fees. The Attorney General agrees that the order must be reversed and the matter remanded.

Defendant appeals after summary judgment was granted in favor of Plaintiff and Respondent De Luz Real Estate, Inc. (De Luz) in its action seeking damages for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, and common counts (quantum meruit). Court affirm.

Emily G. (mother) appeals from the termination of her parental rights as to her son, Jose M. (child) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends that (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in removing the child from the maternal grandmothers home, and (2) the court should have found, based on mothers visitation, contact, and the special circumstances of this case that a plan of legal guardianship or long term foster care was in the childs best interest. Court find no error, and Court affirm.

Irene D. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights to A.D. and I.D. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Court affirmed.

Vanessa P. (mother) is the mother of L.O., now six years old. Mother challenges the juvenile courts order entered under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, terminating her parental rights to L.O. Specifically, mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it declined to grant the brief continuance requested by mothers counsel so that counsel could check voice mail to determine whether mother had left a message as to why she was not present at the section 366.26 hearing. Court conclude that, while we might have made a different decision depending on how busy the juvenile courts calendar was, the ruling denying the brief continuance was not an abuse of discretion. Court affirmed.

Appellant pled no contest to carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a); count 1), assault with deadly weapon by means or force likely to produce great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), driving in willful or wanton disregard for safety of persons or property while fleeing from pursuing police officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2; count 3), theft and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a); count 4) and elder abuse ( 368, subd. (b)(1); count 5). He admitted special allegations of the following: in committing the count 1, 2 and 5 offenses he personally inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)); he suffered two prior felony convictions, each of which qualified as a strike and as a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)); and he served a prison term for a prior felony conviction ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The court imposed a prison term of 64 years to life, with the determinate portion of the term consisting of the following: consecutive 25-year terms on each of counts 1 and 3; three years on one of the great bodily injury (GBI) enhancements; five years on each of the prior serious felony enhancements; and one year on the prior prison term enhancement. The court also imposed concurrent 25 years to life terms on each of counts 2 and 5, and imposed and, pursuant to section 654, stayed execution of a term of 25 years to life on count 4. On appeal, appellant contends (1) the court erred in failing to stay, pursuant to section 654, execution of sentence on counts 2 and 5; and (2) the abstract of judgment erroneously indicates the court imposed three GBI enhancements of one year each rather than one three year GBI enhancement. The People concede each of these points. Court modify the judgment to provide that execution of sentence on the count 2 and 5 substantive offenses and accompanying enhancements be stayed; direct the preparation of an amended abstract of judgment; and in all other respects affirm.