500 matching results for "abundy":
From CA Unpub Decisions
A helicopter crash in Colombia on July 12, 2011, killed the pilot and passenger. The surviving heirs filed a wrongful death action against Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., Honeywell International, Inc., and Rolls-Royce Corporation. Robinson Helicopter, Honeywell, and Rolls-Royce (collectively, cross-complainants) subsequently filed nearly identical cross-complaints against a Colombian entity and Roes 1-25. Each cross-complainant later designated petitioners Inversiones Papaluchi S.A.S. and Inversiones Protech S.A.S. (collectively, petitioners) as Roe cross-defendants.
Petitioners challenge the respondent court’s order denying their motion to quash service of summons and dismiss the cross-complaints. (Code Civ. Proc., §418.10, subd. (c).) An alternative writ was issued directing the respondent court to vacate its order, or to show cause before this court why relief sought in the petition should not be granted. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant and appellant Michael Clayton Perkins (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon a plea of no contest to grand theft. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On November 30, 2017, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues that do not require a certificate of probable cause, we affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In April 1994 Kevin Nigel Furr was convicted on one count of first degree burglary. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and Furr was placed on three years of probation on condition he serve nine months in county jail.
On April 20, 2017 Furr filed an application to have the felony conviction designated a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Pen. Code, § 1170.18). The trial court denied the application, finding the offense did not qualify as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. Furr filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging the denial of his application. We appointed counsel to represent Furr on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 20, 2017 we advised Furr he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Eddis Davenport pleaded guilty in November 1997 to one felony count of fraudulent possession of a check or money order in violation of former Penal Code section 475a (now Penal Code section 475, subd. (c)). Pursuant to a negotiated agreement the trial court sentenced Davenport to a state prison term of two years.
On March 21, 2017 Davenport, representing himself, filed an application requesting that the felony conviction be designated a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Pen, Code, § 1170.18). The district attorney opposed the application on the ground the amount of loss exceeded $950.00. The trial court denied the application, finding the conviction did not qualify as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. Davenport filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging the denial of his application. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
D.W. and Arthur B., Sr. (Arthur Sr.), parents of infant Arthur B., Jr. (Arthur), appeal from the juvenile court findings declaring Arthur a dependent of the court pursuant to a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). D.W. and Arthur Sr. contend substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding under section 300, subdivision (a), that their son faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm from their violent altercations. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services moves to dismiss the appeal by D.W. and Arthur Sr. as not justiciable because D.W. and Arthur Sr. do not challenge the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings under section 300, subdivision (b), based on their history of domestic violence and substance abuse, or the court’s disposition order. Because we cannot grant D.W. and Arthur Sr. any effective relief, we dismiss the appeal.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In December 2016, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant Angelo Camacho (defendant) in a three-count information with kidnapping (count 1), injuring a spouse, cohabitant, fiancé, boyfriend, girlfriend, or child’s parent (count 2), and criminal threats (count 3). The information further alleged defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of count 2. The charges were predicated on evidence that defendant forced his ex-girlfriend, R.G., to accompany him to his residence by threatening to harm her family and, once there, repeatedly struck her in the face and head.
Pursuant to an agreement with the People, defendant pled no contest to the kidnapping and injuring a spouse or cohabitant charges in exchange for the prosecution’s agreement to dismiss the criminal threats charge and to recommend the court impose an eight-year sentence, execution of which would be suspended while defendant was placed on probation. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Gerber Aviles was sentenced to six months in county jail following his conviction of simple assault, a lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape, sodomy or oral copulation. Aviles’s court-appointed appellate counsel notified this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 that she was unable to find any arguable issues to assert on appeal. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiff and appellant Simona Farrise (Simona), as trustee of the KSBLAND Trust (the Trust), and individually as a beneficiary of the Trust, appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendants and appellants Rosario Bacon Billingsley (Billingsley), Andrew Billingsley, and the Law Offices of Rosario Bacon Billingsley (collectively, defendants) after the trial court granted defendants’ special motion to strike, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, all of the causes of action asserted against them. We affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Valentine Rutherford and Christine Rutherford appeal from judgment for US Lease Financing, Inc., and its sole shareholder Gary Holt (collectively Holt), after a court trial (1) on the Rutherfords’ complaint for slander of title and malicious prosecution and (2) on Holt’s cross-complaint against Valentine for breach of a promissory note.
The parties have a long history of litigation arising from hard money loans secured by deeds of trust. The Rutherfords contend they should have prevailed as a matter of law because (1) Holt acted with malice when he brought an action to quiet title to a lot when earlier litigation had established that he had no ownership interest in it; (2) Holt is barred from asserting any claim on the promissory note by the doctrine of res judicata because he could have litigated it in the quiet title action; and (3) the note was not supported by consideration. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant and appellant Raymond Edward Padilla was found guilty by jury of six felonies. The offenses involved various lewd acts with four different minor girls, including his niece and three of his daughter’s friends. Defendant was sentenced to six consecutive 15-years-to-life sentences pursuant to the One Strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61).
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte with lesser included offenses as to counts 2, 5 and 6. Alternatively, defendant argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not request a lesser included instruction as to those counts. Defendant also raises two sentencing errors. Defendant contends the trial court erred in believing it lacked discretion to impose concurrent sentences as to four of the counts, and in denying him an award of presentence conduct credits. Respondent contends the sentence imposed is unauthorized and requests remand for resentencing. We affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
A “personal management agreement” between an entertainer and a management company provides that “[a]ny dispute hereunder shall be submitted to binding arbitration.” The issue presented in this appeal is whether the arbitration agreement applies to those portions of a civil complaint alleging that the entertainer committed various torts, including assault and battery, defamation, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These tort claims plainly are not covered by the arbitration agreement, as the trial court correctly ruled.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
When you cancel an insurance policy during its term, you get a refund from your insurer of some of the premium you paid for the insurance. For example, if you cancel a one-year policy after six months, you might expect the insurance company to return 50 percent of the annual premium you paid. Or, if you cancel after three months, you might expect the insurance company to return 75 percent of your annual premium. You might think that whenever you cancel an insurance policy, you should get a pro rata or proportionate refund.
But, at least for the policies involved in this case, you would be wrong. Instead, you get something called a “short rate” return of the premium you paid, which is something less than a pro rata or proportionate refund. And that may be okay, if the insurer disclosed to you when you purchased the policy that if you cancel you get a short rate return of the premium and explained to you what a short rate is and how the insurer calculates it. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Arthur Eugene Lindsey was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses, including rape and oral copulation of an unconscious person. The trial court sentenced Lindsey to 50 years to life plus an additional determinate term of 52 years and four months.
Lindsey contends the trial court erred by denying his post-verdict Marsden motion and argues the court’s instructional errors require reversal. In addition, Lindsey claims the trial court erred by finding that both of his prior Indiana convictions qualified as serious or violent felonies for purposes of the three strikes law. He also argues the court erred by imposing multiple serious felony enhancements on his determinate and indeterminate sentences. We find no Marsden or instructional error but agree the sentence was erroneous. Consequently, while we affirm the judgment of conviction, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Christina C. (mother) is the mother of five-year-old Brody G. (Brody), who was taken into protective custody in June 2015. In December 2017, the juvenile court held an 18-month review hearing and found that the return of Brody to mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to his safety, protection, or well-being within the meaning of section 366.22, subdivision (a)(1) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a permanency hearing under section 366.26. The permanency hearing is scheduled for February 22, 2018.
Mother filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the court’s order, arguing the juvenile court erred by finding the return of Brody to her would create a substantial risk of harm. She also contends the court should have extended reunification services for another six months under section 366.22, subdivision (b). She requested a temporary stay of the permanency hearing. |