CA Unpub Decisions

A decision regarding possession of methamphetamine for sale and a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony, a strike under California's â€

Appellant challenges his negotiated plea bargain, arguing failure to admit each element of the sentencing enhancements invalidates plea. Court conclude no error occurred and hold appellant is not entitled to vacate the judgment. However, Court reverse in part to allow the trial court to revise a minor sentencing error

Appeal from an order imposing a permanent conservatorship over appellant's person pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. Court affirm.

A criminal law decision regarding assault with a deadly weapon with a great bodily injury enhancement.

A criminal law decision regarding being a felon in possession of a firearm and being a felon in possession of ammunition.

Appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court revoked probation and sentenced appellant to three years state prison for petty theft with a prior. Appellant claims that he was denied due process and that the trial court erred in ordering appellant to provide DNA samples. Court affirm

A criminal law decision regarding commercial burglary and forgery.

A criminal law decision regarding burglary felony murder.

A criminal law decision regarding lewd and lascivious conduct on three girls, all under age 14, and orally copulating a fourth girl under age 14, girl 4, by means of force.

A criminal law decision regarding first degree murder.

A decision regarding declaratory relief, quiet title, adverse possession, cross-complaint for declaratory relief, quiet title, and injunctive relief.

Lawsuit to establish a right-of-way across property owned by defendants. In challenging the trial court's decision, Appellant claims that he had established the existence of an easement through at least one of the theories set forth in complaint including an easement by conveyance, an easement by adverse possession. An easement by implication and an easement by necessity. Appellant also claims that the court erred in failing to balance the hardships in his favor. Court affirms the judgment.

After a marriage of 12 years, husband claimed, not responsible for spousal support on the ground that marriage was invalid because of wife's prior existing marriage. The trial court, however, found that Appellant was estopped from challenging the validity of marriage.

This appeal involves the construction of a now-completed Wal-Mart Supercenter in Beaumont. The Wal-Mart includes a major retail store, a gas station, a pharmacy and other retail and commercial space on about 23 acres. Plaintiff's primary objection to the underlying CEQA approval was the alleged failure of the City of Beaumont properly to analyze and mitigate three areas of environmental impact: traffic, air quality, and noise, as well as project alternatives.Court hold the EIR and the CEQA findings are supported by substantial evidence. Court affirms the judgment