500 matching results for "ravimor":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Enos Hayesappeals from the judgment on his convictions following a jury trial for possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun (Pen. Code,[1] § 33215, count 5) and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 6; § 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 7). The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of nine years in state prison and awarded 365 days of presentence custody credit.
Appellant contends substantial evidence did not support his convictions for possession of a firearm and ammunition. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.Appellant also asserts the trial court erred in its calculation and award of presentence custody credits, and he is entitled to 437 days’ credit. Respondent agrees that the court miscalculated appellant’s custody credits, but asserts he was entitled to 385 days of presentence credit. Finally, appellant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the trial court lacked authority to impose a postconvicti |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiff and appellant Marion Liu (plaintiff), as successor-in-interest to her deceased son, Augustine Liu, II (decedent), appeals from various orders of the trial court concerning defendant and appellant Janssen Research & Development, LLC (defendant).[1] Defendant contends the appeal is untimely and should therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
We conclude that all of plaintiff’s claims on behalf of her son’s estate were resolved by a judgment in favor of defendant, entered February 14, 2013. Plaintiff previously appealed from that judgment and then voluntarily dismissed that appeal on November 20, 2013. Because plaintiff filed her notice of appeal for the instant appeal on August 24, 2015, we dismiss this appeal as untimely. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
This is one of several lawsuits Friends of Outlet Creek (Friends) is pursuing in an effort to prevent asphalt production at the site of an aggregate operation. The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (District) and Grist Creek Aggregates, LLC (Grist Creek) successfully demurred on the ground Friends can only proceed against the District in an administrative mandamus proceeding under Health and Safety Code section 40864, which the District and Grist contend cannot embrace a challenge under the California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA). Friends, in turn, has expressly disclaimed any reliance on Health and Safety Code section 40864 and asserts it can sue the District directly under CEQA. The trial court sustained the District’s and Grist’s demurrer, and dismissed the action.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
After being convicted of first degree burglary, a violation of Penal Code[1] sections 459 and 460, subdivision (a), appellant challenges his conviction. His lone issue is the failure of the trial court to instruct on the offense of trespass. We have reviewed the case and conclude there is no error here, and if any took place, it was harmless. We therefore affirm the conviction.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A modification decision.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Del Rayo Estates Homeowners Association (Association) is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation that manages the Del Rayo Estates common interest development in Rancho Santa Fe. The Del Rayo Estates is governed by an Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (Declaration) of the Association. Plaintiff Georg Lingenbrink, Trustee of the Petra Krismer Living Trust dated April 7, 2011, is the trustee of a trust that owns property within the Del Rayo Estates.
In the underlying complaint in this action,Lingenbrink sued the Associationto compel itto enforce a landscaping restriction in the Declaration that precludes one property owner's trees (and other vegetation) from interfering with the view of any other property owner. Following a court trial, judgment was filed in favor of Lingenbrink and against the Association. That judgment is on appeal in Lingenbrink v. Del Rayo Estates Homeowners Assn., case No. D070194 (Lingenbrink I). |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant and appellant Christine M. Ries appeals from a judgment in favor of her sister Allison Masters following a bench trial on Ries's petition seeking to confirm the will and trust of theirfather Adolf Wolf as well as Ries's status as its sole trustee, and Masters's cross-petition to declare void or voidable the will and trust in part on grounds those documents were procured by Ries's undue influence. The trial court declared Wolf's will and trust void and ordered his estate to pass to his heirs by intestate succession. Ries contends: (1) the trial court erroneously shifted the burden to her to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Wolf's will and trust were not procured by undue influence; (2) no substantial evidence supports the court's finding that she failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence; (3) even if substantial evidence supports the court's undue influence findings, there is no evidence the undue influence extended to the
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In this appeal, officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) challenge the trial court's order granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Gregory L. Rhoades, who is a Native American prisoner incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison (Calipatria).In granting Rhoades's petition, the trial court concluded that the prohibition on the use of straight tobacco during prisoners'Native American religious ceremonies violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)(42 U.S.C. § 2000ccet seq.)andit ordered the California Department of Corrections to "formulate and implement policies permitting and reasonably regulating the possession and use of straight tobacco" during those ceremonies.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Michael J. appeals from a juvenile court disposition order committing him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). He contends the court abused its discretion in committing him to the DJJ and determining he did not have exceptional educational needs, and seeks remand for further evaluation of his educational needs. We reject these contentions and affirm the order.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant homeowners' association seeks review of a judgment that, consistent with the association's governing documents, directs the association to require a nonparty homeowner in the planned development project to trim his trees so that they do not interfere with the plaintiff homeowner's westerly view to the ocean. We conclude that 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court's ruling that the homeowner timely filed this action; 2) the trial court did not err in interpretingor in reviewing the association's application ofthe relevant provision of the association's governing documents; and 3) the association's unsupported suggestion that the trial judge may have been disqualified from entering judgment is frivolous and, accordingly, presents no basis for relief on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted Dwight E. Samuels of three counts of first degree burglary(Pen. Code,[1] § 459; counts 1, 2 and 3); one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 4); and one count of resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 5). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegations that Samuels had one prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)); and a "strike" prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668,1170.12).The trial court sentenced Samuels to 23 years four months in state prison. The court also ordered Samuels to pay restitution to the victims as follows: Wallace M.[2]and Elizabeth A., $21,000; William and Pemba S., $5,264; and Ryanand Rachelle S., an amount to be determined.
On appeal, Samuels contends the trial court erred (1) in denying his motions for mistrial after one of the People's witnesses inadvertently testified in contravention of a court order that, at the time |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Xavier C. appeals the juvenile court's judgment declaring him a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] and placing him on probation, and a subsequent order modifying the terms and conditions of probation. On appeal, Xavier asserts the probation condition restricting his use of computers to school-related activities is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) and overbroad. Xavier also asserts, and the Attorney General concedes, that the trial court erred by failing to award him predisposition custody credits and not specifying the maximum period of confinement. We reject Xavier's contention that the probation condition was unreasonable and overbroad, but remand for the juvenile court to calculate predisposition custody credits and the maximum period of confinement.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Daniel J. Masterson, an inmate, appeals from a judgmentdenying his administrative petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel prison officials to process his inmate appeal challenging the actions of a correctional officer. Masterson contends we must reverse the judgment because the court erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of facts and by failing to recognize the prison had a ministerial duty to process his inmate appeal. We do not reachthese issues because Masterson's claim is moot and he did not exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury found Adam Michael Starkey not guilty of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),[1] but guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a); count 1).[2] The jury also found that Starkey intentionally and personally discharged a firearm causing death, in violation of section 12022.5, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced Starkey to an aggregate term of 21 years in state prison, consisting of 11 years for manslaughter and 10 years for the firearm enhancement.[3]
On appeal, Starkey claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of statements that he made during a custodial interrogation in the hours after the homicide. Specifically, Starkey argues that he did not validly waive his "Miranda[[4]] rights" due to his intoxication and emotional distress, and a law enforcement officer's "exploitation of those conditions."[5] Starkey also claims that the trial court erred in discharging a juror in |