CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals from the order extending his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) under Penal Code section 2970. He maintains there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that his mental illness could not be kept in remission without treatment. Court affirm.

Francisco Partida broke into a San Francisco womans apartment one June evening and sexually assaulted her at knifepoint for almost three hours. A jury convicted him of burglary and multiple sexual offenses, and he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life imprisonment plus consecutive sentences totaling an additional 12 years 8 months imprisonment. In this appeal, Partida claims the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 and deprived him of his federal due process rights by excluding expert testimony that he suffered from a neurological disorder. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his plea of no contest to possessing cocaine base for sale. He challenges the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (i). Court affirm

Following the denial of his motion to suppress, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) and two counts of second degree commercial burglary ( 459/460, subd. (b)). He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his initial detention was not founded on a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity. Court affirm.

Defendant Michael David Lowder, by an amended notice of appeal, appeals from his conviction of a single count of receiving stolen property and the sentence following that conviction. ( 496, subd. (a).) Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief in which he raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also has filed a declaration in which he states he advised defendant of his right to file his own supplemental brief. Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Court have conducted a review, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

Defendant is a state prisoner who was involuntarily committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2960.[1] He appeals from a judgment after a bench trial extending his commitment to the state mental hospital pursuant to section 2970. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.

The suit is evidently based on the City and County of San Franciscos (City) rejection of plaintiffs job applications. Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation with the City, and defendant, a City attorney, rejected that claim on behalf of the City. Plaintiff is suing defendant for negligence, but no negligence on his part is apparent. Insofar as it appears from the documents before court, the demurrer was correctly sustained. The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner seeks review by extraordinary writ, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, of the juvenile courts findings and orders, in which the juvenile court denied petitioners request for presumed father status, pursuant to Family Code section 7611, as to Ethan C. (now one year old), and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Petitioner contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that he was not Ethans presumed father. Court deny the petition for extraordinary writ.

Defendant Container Connection of Southern California (CCSC) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs Danzas AEI Intercontinental (Danzas) and Danmar Lines, Ltd. (Danmar) (collectively referred to as plaintiffs). Court reverse the judgment to the extent it is adverse to CCSC.

Plaintiff Ophir RF, Inc., sued its former employees, defendants Efraim Bainvoll, Gerhard Peter, and Wong Ju Kong, Jr., and their current employer, defendant Empower RF Systems, Inc., for misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims. After the jury returned a defense verdict, the trial court entered judgment for defendants and denied motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial. On appeal, Ophir contends that its motion for new trial should have been granted because of jury misconduct. Court affirm.

The Law Offices of Daniel J. Doonan, Inc. (Doonan) appeals from orders denying its motion for attorneys fees brought pursuant to Civil Code section 1717and imposing sanctions against it for filing that motion. Doonan contends that it was the prevailing party and therefore was entitled to attorneys fees as a matter of law. It also maintains that because its motion for attorneys fees was supported by authority, the trial court had no basis for imposing sanctions. Court affirm the order denying Doonans motion for attorneys fees but reverse the sanctions order.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction of multiple counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years, possession of child pornography, and sending harmful matter with intent to seduce a child. He contends the trial court erred in (1) denying his request to substitute retained counsel for previously retained counsel; (2) excluding certain testimony by a defense expert witness; and (3) giving CALJIC No. 2.50.01. He also contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

Defendant appeal from the judgments entered following their convictions by a jury on one count of second degree murder with special findings by the jury concerning use of a firearm during the murder. Except for correction of a technical error in the abstract of judgment, Court affirm.

Appellants contend that the fifth amendment to the partnership agreement of St. George, a California Limited Partnership, is invalid. The amendment requires the posting of an undertaking in the event that any partner initiates an action against the partnership, unless a court finds that the partners claims have probable validity. Appellants contend that: (1) the amendment was not validly adopted; (2) the amendment is unconscionable; (3) the amendment violates the United States Constitution; and (4) the amendment is unenforceable as contrary to public policy. Appellants further contend that even if the amendment were enforceable, the trial court erred in determining that appellants claims lacked probable validity.