500 matching results for "ravimor":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendants, Kendal Vernon Johnson, Keith Jermaine Fuller and Dashawn Combs, were convicted after jury trials of: first degree murder with special circumstances (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17));[1] attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)); first degree burglary with a person present (§§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21)); and home invasion robbery (§ 211). Mr. Fuller and Mr. Combs were jointly tried before separate juries. Mr. Johnson was separately tried. The juries also found true gang and firearm use enhancement allegations. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C), 12022.53.) Mr. Johnson was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 80 years to life. Mr. Fuller was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 50 years to life plus 18 years. Mr. Combs was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 15 years to life plus 10 years. We modify the judgments and affirm as modified with directions.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Rufus Tyrone Haynes (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence and he pleaded guilty to three firearm related charges (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 25400, subd. (a)(2), 25850, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior prison term allegation (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and shall affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Petitioner Corey Glassman seeks habeas corpus relief from the decision of the Governor overturning for the second time the determination of the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) that he is suitable for parole. Glassman’s crime, committed as a juvenile more than 30 years ago, was—as all parties recognize—truly horrific. Nonetheless, the Governor’s decision that Glassman currently presents an unreasonable risk of danger to society is not supported by “some evidence,” so that we must set it aside and reinstate the Board’s decision finding Glassman suitable for parole.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
This is an appeal from final judgment after a jury convicted appellant David Allan Russell of felony reckless evasion of a peace officer and felony driving or taking a vehicle without consent. The trial court thereafter found true various enhancements related to appellant’s prior felony convictions, and ordered him to serve a total prison term of two years and eight months.
After appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende) in which she raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (People v. Kelly).) Counsel attests that appellant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but he declined to exercise such right. We have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Vernon Mandigo appeals his conviction for attempted burglary with a gang enhancement. He contends the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence resulting from what he contends was a warrantless arrest without probable cause. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiffs Richard and Marcella Johnson sued defendant Moore Dry Dock, along with a host of other defendants, alleging that Richard Johnson (Johnson) developed mesothelioma from his occupational exposure to asbestos during his service in the Navy in the 1960s. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs’ expert witness’s declaration failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether Johnson was exposed to asbestos from any of defendant’s products. Agreeing that there are no triable issues of material fact, we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Antonio Hendrix appeals from a judgment following a jury trial. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. There are no issues requiring further review and we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant contends the convictions for rape and oral copulation are not supported by substantial evidence; on the contrary, he insists the evidence demonstrated that as a matter of law he actually and reasonably believed the victim consented. Next, he contends that because the victim’s confinement was unbroken, he could be convicted of only one count of false imprisonment, not four. If these contentions are rejected, defendant argues the trial court erred in ordering the sentences for these offenses to be served consecutively.And he argues that a number of his sentences ought to be stayed by reason of section 654. Finally defendant argues, and the Attorney Generalagrees, that the abstract of judgment has a number of errors that require correction.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Cross-complainant David Dold appeals the entry of summary judgment against him on his sole cause of action requesting declaratory relief concerning the seniority of his alleged security interest in a one million dollar promissory note. He contends the trial court erred in concluding the deed of trust creating his security interest was invalid because it was never delivered. We affirm the summary judgment ruling on the alternate ground that, as argued by respondent, Dold’s security interest was time-barred, and thus in effectextinguished. That is an issue cross-defendant and respondent raised both below and again on appeal, but Dolddeclined to address in the briefing.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding that the founders of a closely held corporation were subject to alter ego liability for the corporation’s activity. Michael Thaler (Michael) and Herb Leibowitz (Herb) founded California Trust Deeds, Inc. (CTD),a non-judicial foreclosure company in 1981.[1]According to the share certificates maintained by CTD, Michael and Herb were the sole CTD shareholders from 1981 onward. As of 1991, Herb was the sole director and officer. Michael remained a customer of CTD personally and through his business, and retained access to CTD’s bank accounts personally or through his son, who was his business partner, through 2008.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendants E.N. and C.B. (Mother and Father, respectively) appeal from an order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 terminating their parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for their two-year old son, M.B. Both parents contend the trial court erred by (1) determining the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to the termination of parental rights did not apply, and (2) failing to give notice of the proceeding to relevant Native American tribes as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). For the reasons explained, we find noerror and will affirm the order.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Victor Noel Vaca appeals from an order denying his Penal Code section 1170.18 petition to designate as a misdemeanor a felony conviction that was previouslydismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4. The Attorney General concedes it was error to deny the petition. For the reasons explained, we find the concession appropriate and agree the court erred. We will therefore reverse the order.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Jose Antonio Silva appeals his conviction of five counts of lewd or lascivious conduct on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on principles of unanimity. As set forth below, we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In his brief on appeal,Cavic makes no mention of any of the underlying orders, nor indeed of the trial court’s entry of judgment, except to note the bare fact that the trial court denied his judicial disqualification motionand allegedly entered the dismissal “without any explanation” beyond his failure to post security. Cavic does not directly challenge either of these rulings, nor the others listed in his notice of appeal. Instead, he uses his brief as a clarion call to the electorate. He states, “People of the Orange County, wake up, we are in the election year and we have a major job to do, to chase away all of those corrupted Santa Ana Court Judges, such as O’Leary, Aronson, Fybel, Bauer, Horn and Margines!!”
Because this claim is directed to the voters for their consideration, we express no opinion on it. As a basis for appeal, however, Cavic does not suggest in his brief that he raised his claim of alleged corruptionbelow to oppose any of t |