CA Unpub Decisions

Petitioner as the administrator of the estate of his late mother, brought this action for wrongful death and elder abuse against the owners of a skilled nursing facility and two administrators. In this writ proceeding, the estate challenges an order sustaining without leave to amend a demurrer to the elder abuse claim. Court concluded the operative complaint states a cause of action for elder abuse. Accordingly, court granted the petition.

A modification decision.

In June 2004, defendant pled no contest to petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction. Defendant was placed on probation for three years on conditions including service of 90 days of incarceration with credit for two days plus fines. On two later dates, Defendant admitted allegations of drug use and violated probation. On appeal, Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising three issues, only the last of which purports to identify an error in the judgment. Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Judgment Affirmed.

In case No. SCD177093, defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender. He admitted a prior strike and serving a prior prison term. The court struck the prior strike, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on probation for three years, including a condition he obey all laws. It revoked probation after the preliminary hearing in case No. SCD190746. In case No. SCD190746, defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to furnishing a controlled substance. Defendant admitted a prior strike. In case No. SCD190746, the court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated six years: double the three-year lower term for furnishing a controlled substance with a prior strike. On appeal, defendant requests an independent review of the record. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to unlawfully taking/driving a vehicle. Defendant was granted probation, which had been agreed-upon as part of his plea bargain. Also as part of that bargain, he waived his right to appeal. Defendant appealed requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
Court found no arguable issues.

In case number RIF-127528, the defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of Penal Code section 459, and admitted the special allegations filed pursuant to Penal Code sections 667.5, subdivision (b), 667, subdivision (c) - (e)(1) and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1) as charged by the District Attorney of Riverside County.
Defendant appealed requesting an independent review of the record. Court found no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by an ex felon. As part of his plea bargain, he waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced to the agreed-to term of three years in prison. Defendant appealed requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Court now concluded independent review of the record and found no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine base and admitted he had suffered a prior conviction for which he served a prison term. Defendant was sentenced to the agreed-to term of four years in prison. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court.
Defendant appealed requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Court concluded the independent review of the record and found no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.

Under a plea agreement entered, defendant pled no contest to one count of forcible sodomy and admitted a special allegation that he used a deadly weapon. The court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of six years to be served consecutively to a federal prison term he was serving. The court also ordered defendant to pay, inter alia, a $20 court security fee. On appeal, defendant contends the imposition of the court security fee violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and statutory principles disfavoring retroactive application of statutes. Court affirmed.

This court issued an opinion which affirmed the judgment of conviction of defendant but reversed his sentence due to legal error. The matter was remanded to the superior court for resentencing. The trial court resentenced defendant without error. Defendant was brought back to court and was again resentenced because the trial court was under the misimpression it had done something wrong. Although the most recent resentence did not punish defendant for the same crime twice, as the original sentence did, it otherwise improperly sentenced defendant to the sentence court previously reversed. The trial court tried three times to sentence defendant to five years in prison. After exercising its discretion three times, the court made it clear it wants to sentence defendant to five years in prison. Court sees no reason to remand again as no further discretionary decisions are required. The sentence the trial court imposed is a legal sentence. Instead of remanding again, court corrected it.

Respondent, who is serving a life term for second degree murder, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the superior court after the Board of Prison Terms (the Board) denied him parole. Respondent alleged that he should be released because he was suitable for parole and had already served a prison sentence that exceeded the top of the second degree murder matrix. Criscione did not attach to his petition a transcript of the parole hearing or any of the evidence that was before the Board at the parole hearing. The superior court issued an order to show cause.
The Board failed to timely file a return, and instead sought an extension of time. The superior court refused to grant an extension of time, ruled that the Board was “in default” and granted the petition. It ordered a new parole hearing at which the Board would be barred from considering its previous findings and would be required to compare Criscione’s offense to the minimum necessary for first degree murder. The Board appeals. Court concluded that the allegations in respondent’s petition did not justify the superior court’s order granting the petition. Because one issue in respondent’s petition remains unresolved, it was necessary to remand the matter for further proceedings.

The minor appeals from a dispositional order placing him on probation for two years with various terms and conditions, following the finding by the juvenile court that the minor committed vehicle burglary and vehicle vandalism. On appeal the minor contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as his counsel failed to bring a motion to suppress the in-field and in-court identifications of him by a witness. As court found that counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of professional reasonableness, court affirmed the dispositional order.

A long-running dispute between plaintiff and defendant concerns the issue of whether a grant of property from defendant’s mother in 1960 was subject to a reservation of the riparian rights. The trial court concluded that defendant had not established that riparian rights had been reserved when his mother conveyed the parcel. Court agreed with that conclusion and affirmed.

Plaintiff is a former employee of the of defendant. Plaintiff resigned from defendant and took early retirement, claiming he had been subjected to a campaign of harassment from a superior. Plaintiff filed an action for wrongful termination, which proceeded to trial on claims for breach of an implied employment contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following the close of Ravella’s case, nonsuit was granted on his claim for punitive damages. The jury found for Plaintiff on both of his causes of action, but the trial court subsequently granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff challenges the adverse rulings on his claims for punitive damages and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also takes issue with the manner in which the trial court calculated prejudgment interest. In its cross-appeal, defendant contends that the claim for breach of contract was preempted by a federal statute and precluded by a novation and that any award of prejudgment interest was improper. Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, but court vacate its award of prejudgment interest and remand for recalculation.