CA Unpub Decisions

Court find no abuse of discretion. Although the evidence as to the Scilacciss pecuniary interest in pursuing the lawsuit was conflicting, there was substantial evidence from which the trial court could determine the costs of litigation were not out of proportion to the Scilacciss individual stake. The Scilaccis had purchased neighboring property at below market value before the lawsuit commenced and had taken actions that indicated an interest in developing that property and therefore an interest in challenging the proposed project.

Jennifer S. petitions this court for an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) setting aside the juvenile courts order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.22 setting a permanent plan hearing ( 366.26). She contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding of substantial risk of detriment if her minor son, Joel H., were to be returned to her. Court disagree and deny the petition.

Mother appeals from orders made by the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 establishing jurisdiction over mothers daughter, Y. L. Mother contends that substantial evidence does not support the courts findings and orders. Court agree that the evidence is insufficient to support the allegations that she knew or reasonably should have known of physical and sexual abuse of Y. L. by her father, G. L. (father). As such, we reverse the trial courts findings on these allegations. In all other respects, Court affirm the orders and findings.

Appellant, mother of minors G.F. and Gi.F. (minors) from juvenile courts May 17, 2006, jurisdictional findings and declaration of dependency. Court find that substantial evidence supports the jurisdiction finding of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c). Finding no error, Court affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211), during which he personally used a handgun ( 12022.53, subd. (b)) and inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)), and his admission he had previously been convicted of a serious felony ( 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d), 667, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced Carrillo to 24 years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

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.

This case is one of several remanded to us by the United States Supreme Court due to their decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham), which has significant effects on Californias criminal sentencing scheme. Court affirm.

This case is one of several remanded to us by the United States Supreme Court due to their decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham), which has significant effects on Californias criminal sentencing scheme. As explained below, Court vacate the sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing.

This case is one of several remanded to us by the United States Supreme Court due to their decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham), which has significant effects on Californias criminal sentencing scheme. As explained below, Court vacate the sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing.

On April 12, 2005, Betty Cheeks pled guilty to one count of welfare fraud (Welf. & Inst. Code, 10980) and 11 counts of issuing checks with insufficient funds (Pen. Code, 476, subd. (a)). The facts relating to these offenses are not relevant to the issue on appeal.
In Court's view, the several aggravating factors relied upon by the court to impose the upper term clearly fell within the prior conviction exception to the Apprendi rule. Further, those prior conviction aggravating factors did not in any way relate to the commission of the offense, but goes to the punishment only . . . . (Almendarez-Torrez v. United States, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 244, italics omitted.) Therefore, these factors did not need to be supported by jury findings.
Accordingly, Court conclude that imposition of the aggravated term in this case did not violate appellants federal constitutional right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment or his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment as explicated in Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. 296 and Cunningham, supra, 127 S.Ct. 856.



III. DISPOSITION

The judgment and sentence are affirmed.

A jury convicted codefendants Jermaine Brooks, Anthony Brown, and Derek Brown of first degree felony murder in connection with the fatal shooting of a convenience store security guard during the course of an attempted robbery. As to Brooks and Anthony, the jury found true the special circumstance allegation that the killing occurred while they were engaged in the attempted commission of a robbery. Because the prosecution did not seek the death penalty against either defendant, they were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The jury found the special circumstance not true as to Derek, and the court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 26 years to life.
Defendants contend that their convictions and adverse special circumstance findings resulted from: (1) a series of evidentiary and instructional errors at trial; (2) prosecutorial misconduct in jury selection, closing argument, and pretrial discovery; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. Brooks and Anthony contend that their life-without-parole sentences were unauthorized by statute and constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings or illegality in the sentences imposed, Court affirm the judgments appealed from.

A modification decision,

These consolidated appeals are from orders granting summary judgment and denying motions for reconsideration and to amend the pleadings in a case involving five causes of action: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (3) trade libel; (4) respondeat superior; and (5) injunction harassment. Court affirm.

Jon Marc Dobrin as trustee of the Blackfield Revocable Living Trust (hereafter Blackfield) appeals from a judgment dismissing Robert Middagh from two consolidated construction defect lawsuits, and from a postjudgment order awarding contractual attorney fees to Middagh. Middagh cross appeals from the order awarding fees. Court affirm the judgment and order, finding that Middagh was properly dismissed due to Blackfields failure to diligently prosecute its claims against him, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to Middagh or in determining the amount of fees to be awarded.