CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Defendant appeals from a trial court order for commitment to the State Department of Mental Health pursuant to a jury verdict finding that he is a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (the Act). Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support that he had been convicted of at least two separate sexually violent offenses, (2) the trial court erred by overruling his relevancy and Evidence Code section 352 objections to the admission of evidence that he was HIV positive and had hepatitis C, and (3) the People engaged in misconduct by arguing that he would be released if the jury did not commit him as an SVP. Court affirmed the judgment.

An attorney at the Department of Corporations received an anonymous telephone call informing him that a compact disk (CD) “with documents” from defendant’s computer, downloaded by the anonymous caller, would be arriving in the mail. The attorney received a CD in the mail a few days later. He put the CD in his computer and looked at the contents of the documents on the CD, which aided him in his investigation of defendant’s misdeeds. Defendant's investigation led to criminal charges against defendant, and defendant moved to suppress the fruits of the contents of the documents on the CD on the ground that a search warrant was required. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant reiterates his contention. Court concluded that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction of nine counts of molesting a child. Defendant asserts that the 225-years-to-life sentence imposed is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the federal and state constitutions and that the “Three Strikes” law does not authorize consecutive terms of 25 years to life on each count. Court disagreed with his claims of error and affirmed the judgment.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement defendant pled guilty to one count of attempted, nonpremeditated murder and admitted having personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense. Court appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. Court reviewed the entire record and concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant appeals the denial of his motion for leave to file a late claim for tort damages against the City of Fremont and its police officers (collectively, City) for false arrest. Appellant did not explain the source of the misinformation, or when he discovered his error. Court affirmed the order.

This appeal and cross-appeal concern three orders made after plaintiffs obtained a December 7, 2004, judgment against defendant that incorporated the terms of the parties’ previous agreement to settle a lawsuit. Plaintiffs challenge (1) denial of their motion for postjudgment costs and attorney fees; and (2) denial of their motion to amend or correct satisfactions of judgment. Defendant challenges an order granting plaintiffs’ motion to void a transfer of real property. Court affirmed each of the orders.

In this marital dissolution action, appellant contends that her former husband, breached his fiduciary duty to her by failing to disclose the extent or the value of certain community property at the time she agreed to two property settlements, and that the trial court should have set aside the judgment incorporating those settlements, on grounds of fraud, perjury, and mistake. Additionally, she asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request for a continuance. Court affirmed.

Defendant was convicted by jury trial of taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent, possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of ammunition by a felon, possession of drug paraphernalia, and receiving stolen property. A prior strike allegation was found true by the court and defendant was sentenced to a total of nine years, eight months in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during her opening statement, that the trial court erred in permitting a police officer witness to demonstrate how his firearm operated, that his sentence for felon in possession of ammunition should have been stayed pursuant to section 654, and that Blakely error occurred. Court found no reversible error and affirmed.

Defendant appeals juvenile court orders denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for reunification services, and terminating his parental rights freeing his son, for adoption under section 366.26. Father challenges the orders on various grounds, none of which warrants reversal. Court affirmed.

Following a bench trial, the court awarded plaintiff $15,000 in compensatory damages upon evidence that defendant pharmacist battered plaintiff customer during an altercation over the authenticity of a prescription plaintiff presented at a drug store. While holding the pharmacist and his employer liable on the battery cause of action, the court rejected plaintiff’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages. Plaintiff appeals the court’s rejection of those claims. Court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.

Following a bench trial, the court awarded plaintiff $15,000 in compensatory damages upon evidence that defendant pharmacist battered plaintiff customer during an altercation over the authenticity of a prescription plaintiff presented at a drug store. While holding the pharmacist and his employer liable on the battery cause of action, the court rejected plaintiff’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages. Plaintiff appeals the court’s rejection of those claims. Court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.

Defendant's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a two-year state prison term after the trial court found that he possessed a burglary tool with the intent to feloniously break or enter a building or vehicle and falsely identified himself to a police officer. On appeal, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation for either alleged violation. Court disagreed, and affirmed the judgment.

Appellants appeal the juvenile court order denying them de facto parent status in the dependency proceedings of their two nieces and nephew. The trial court denied the request because the aunt and uncle had not assumed the role of the children’s parents on a day-to-day basis for a substantial period of time. Court affirmed.