500 matching results for "mk":
From CA Unpub Decisions
INTRODUCTION
On October 6, 2012, plaintiffs’ decedent, Diego Martinez, was stabbed to death by Andre Arriaga Preciado in the parking lot of El 7 Mares Restaurant (restaurant). Diego Martinez’s parents, Salvador Martinez and Teresa Martinez, and minor children, Aiden Martinez and Diego Aaron Martinez (collectively, appellants), sued for the wrongful death of their son and father. They obtained a $1.12 million default judgment against the restaurant and its owner, Sergio Diaz Salazar (collectively, respondents). Respondents successfully moved to set aside the default and default judgment on the basis the judgment was void for lack of proper service of the summons and complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) The trial court denied appellants’ motion for reconsideration. We affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Rodrigo Ignacio appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of attempted second degree robbery (count 1; Pen. Code, § 664/211), resisting an executive officer (count 3; § 69), and battery upon a peace officer (count 4 ; § 243, subd. (b)). Appellant admitted, and the court found true, a 2014 conviction for robbery, which was alleged as a prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subd. (b)–(j), 1170.12). The trial court granted appellant’s Romero motion, and imposed an aggregate sentence of 7 years in state prison, consisting of the low term of 16 months on count 1, plus 5 years pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and one-third the mid term of 24 months for an additional 8 months on count 4.
Appellant contends: (1) the prosecution’s failure timely to provide the defense with the body camera video of appellant |
From CA Unpub Decisions
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs alleged that their elderly father and husband suffered injuries and neglect while in the care of defendants, which eventually led to his death. Defendants—a hospital, doctor, and nurses—demurred to the complaint, asserting that the allegations were uncertain and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. After successive complaints and demurrers, the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers to the third amended complaint without leave to amend. We reverse. Although the third amended complaint was verbose, the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrers on uncertainty grounds. In addition, the third amended complaint stated viable causes of action against the defendants, and the allegations do not warrant a finding that certain claims are time-barred. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Goleta Ag Preservation (Goleta Ag) is an unincorporated association. Its members are farmers who are customers of the Goleta Water District (District). They use untreated and minimally-treated water to irrigate commercial agriculture.
Goleta Ag appeals from the trial court’s order denying a petition for writ of mandate that would have directed the District to retroactively reverse its rate structure for 2015 through 2020, and would have invalidated the ordinance that adopted it (Ordinance 2015-4, the ordinance). Goleta Ag contends the District used defective notice procedures to implement new tiered water rates and drought surcharges. It also contends these charges force agricultural customers to subsidize the cost of urban conservation, in violation of the procedural and substantive requirements of Proposition 218. (Prop. 218, as approved by the voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996), Cal. Const., article XIII D, § 6, subds. (a)(1) and (b)(3)). |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Jude Darrin, age 81, petitioned for a restraining order under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Elder Abuse Act, Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.), alleging that her next-door neighbor, Sandra Miller, subjected her to ongoing abuse and harassment. The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that because the two women were simply neighbors, there was no special relationship between them to give Darrin standing under the Elder Abuse Act. We shall reverse. The plain language of the Elder Abuse Act authorizes a trial court to issue a restraining order against any individual who has engaged in abusive conduct, as defined by statute, toward a person age 65 or older regardless of the relationship between the alleged abuser and victim. (§§ 15610.07, subd. (a)(1); 15657.03.)
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Father and Maria Hristopoulos (Mother) are the parents of one child. In June 2015, after their relationship ended, the trial court ordered Father to pay Mother $750 per month in child support through November 30, 2015 and $2,573 per month thereafter, additional costs for “add-on” expenses, $25,000 in child support arrearages for the period from November 8, 2012 through April 30, 2015, and $21,428 for add-on expenses from November 1, 2012 through April 30, 2015.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury found defendant-appellant Joseph D. Quintana guilty of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69, count 1), resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and driving with suspended or revoked driving privileges (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a), count 3).
Quintana appeals and raises four issues: (1) counts 1 and 2 must be reversed because the trial court gave a modified version of CALCRIM No. 2670 that lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof on the issue of the officers’ lawful performance of their duties; (2) counts 1 and 2 must be reversed because the modified version of CALCRIM No. 2670 given was argumentative; (3) all counts must be reversed because the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b); and (4) count 2 must be reversed because it was a lesser included offense of count 1, thus multiple convictions were barred. We reject |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Billy Raymond Mount appeals from his convictions of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count one), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count two), willfully and maliciously discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle (§ 26100, subd. (c); count three), felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count four), unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29805; count five), and multiple enhancements, including personal and intentional discharge of a gun causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and commission of the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Jose Arturo Gonzalez was charged in an eight-count information with several felony offenses—stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a); count 1), making criminal threats (§ 422; counts 2, 3, 4, 5), dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 6), and resisting an executive officer (§ 69; count 7)—and one misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct by distributing a private intimate image (§ 647, subd. (j)(4); count 8). After a five-day jury trial, defendant was convicted of stalking, one count of making a criminal threat (count 5), dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, and disorderly conduct by distributing a private intimate image.
Defendant now appeals, limiting his challenge to his conviction of count 5, making a criminal threat. He contends that his conviction of this count must be reversed because the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence of his intent to threaten the victim, Jane Doe, with death or great bodily i |
From CA Unpub Decisions
This is an appeal from judgment after a jury convicted defendant Jim Manuel of 24 counts of committing a lewd act on a 15-year-old child when defendant was at least 10 years older than the child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)). According to defendant, the trial court committed reversible error because its instruction to the jury on consideration of other, uncharged sexual acts against a minor lessened the prosecution’s burden of proof, and because its exclusion of key evidence relevant to the victim’s credibility deprived him of the opportunity to mount a full defense. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
After a jury trial, appellant Alfredo M. Vasquez (Vasquez) was found guilty of 68 felonies arising out of the repeated sexual abuse of his daughter, Jane Doe, from the time she was 11 years old until his arrest when she was 15. On appeal, Vasquez argues the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence Jane had sexual intercourse with her boyfriend on the day she disclosed her father’s abuse. He further claims the trial court committed evidentiary error in admitting the entirety of Jane’s videotaped statement to the police. Finally, Vasquez takes issue with the modified unanimity instruction given in this case. Finding all of Vasquez’s arguments unpersuasive, we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted defendant Shane Moroni Martinez of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); count 1) and driving with a 0.08% or higher blood alcohol level (§ 23152, subd. (b); count 2). The jury also found true for each count an allegation that Martinez had a prior DUI conviction (§ 23550.5).
Martinez contends on appeal that his convictions should be reversed because the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted Martinez’s prior DUI conviction and failed to bifurcate the trial on the prior conviction allegations. Relatedly, Martinez contends that his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to argue for exclusion of the prior DUI conviction and a bifurcated trial on the ground that the prior conviction was not an element of the charged offenses. In addition, Martinez contends that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct when cross-examining Martinez, and that defense counsel provided inef |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant David Lopez pleaded no contest to first degree robbery and admitted he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b).) The trial court imposed a total term of eight years in state prison, including four years for the firearm enhancement.
Lopez contends we must remand to the trial court for resentencing because, after the trial court imposed the above sentence, the Legislature amended section 12022.53 to grant trial courts the discretion to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements. He argues that the amendment applies retroactively to his case under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada). The Attorney General contends this claim is not cognizable because the trial court did not grant a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5. As set forth below, we conclude Lopez is entitled to retroactive application of the newly amended section 12022.53. We further conclude this claim is cogni |
From CA Unpub Decisions
This case concerns a $25,000 fine imposed by defendant County of Monterey against plaintiffs William R. Lewis and Duncan B. Lewis for using a large house next door to their primary residence as a short term rental property and wedding venue without obtaining permits for those uses. The county sent notices over multiple years informing plaintiffs their short term rental and wedding venue uses were not allowed without a permit. The county eventually imposed the fine at issue here when plaintiffs continued the uses without applying for a permit. Plaintiffs seek to use their appeal of that fine as a vehicle to challenge what they allege is a pattern of discrimination against coastal landowners in favor of inland landowners for whom short term rentals are authorized with a permit. As we will explain, plaintiffs’ failure to apply for or obtain a permit to use their property for short term rentals and weddings provided an adequate basis for the fine they challenge. We will therefore af
|