Source: https://www.fearnotlaw.com/wsnkb/ca-unpub-decisions/
Timestamp: 2020-04-05 08:56:19
Document Index: 675102393

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 23152', '§ 667', '§ 1320', '§ 12022', '§ 211', '§ 667', '§ 1385', '§ 10851', '§ 12500', '§ 10851', '§ 2800', '§ 466']

Fear Not Law Articles: CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
Plaintiff Jonathan Asselin-Normand brought several causes of action against defendants America’s Best Value Inn, et al. arising out of the defendants’ alleged policy of requiring a minimum guest check-in age of 21. Asselin-Normand appeals following the trial court’s order of dismissal. He challenges the dismissal on several grounds. He also contends remand is required in light of Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 at page 623, because the trial court granted him a fee waiver, but failed to make an official court reporter available to him at the hearing that led to the dismissal. That contention has merit. We will reverse the order of dismissal and remand for a new hearing.
Minor, C. B. challenges a judgment entered after the juvenile court, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, found that he had committed robbery and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, and found true that he had personally used a firearm in the robbery. The minor makes two related arguments, which he claims require reversal. First, he asserts the juvenile court committed misconduct when it secretly conducted an experiment on the minor’s gun by manipulating the lighting in the judge’s chambers. Second, he argues the prosecution committed misconduct when it manipulated the minor’s gun in a photograph admitted into evidence, which encouraged the juvenile court’s illicit independent investigation. Finally, he argues given the passage of Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) amending Penal Code section 12022.53, remand is required in order to allow the juvenile court to exercise its sentencing discretion. The People concur remand is required for t
Defendant Bub Tahchahlah Bamford pleaded no contest to felony driving under the influence (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550.5) with a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) in case No. 13F2842, felony failure to appear (FTA) (§ 1320, subd. (b)) with an on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1) in case No. 13F2661, and 12 felony FTA counts in case No. 14F3951. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation. When probation was later revoked, the trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year eight-month state prison term.
On appeal, defendant contends the on-bail enhancement should have been stricken because the underlying felony was subsequently reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. He also contends that those felony FTA offenses based on felonies that were subsequently reduced to misdemeanors pursuant to section 1170.18, should have been reduced to misdemeanors as well. In our original opinion, we rejected
P. v. Simpson CA2/8
Defendant Eddie S. Simpson appeals following his jury conviction of attempted robbery of the first degree (Pen. Code, §§ 211 & 664). Defendant admitted a prior residential burglary conviction. The court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison, a term that included a then-mandatory five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction. (§ 667, former subd. (a)(1); § 1385, former subd. (b).)
On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to show specific intent to commit robbery. He also contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the lesser included offense of attempted theft. And, in supplemental briefing, defendant contends legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2019, ending the statutory prohibition on a trial court’s ability to strike a prior serious felony enhancement, applies and requires a remand for a new sentencing hearing.
Arellano v. Okyere CA2/6
Defendant Francis Okyere appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiff Edith Arellano on Arellano’s action for breach of contract. We conclude, among other things, that Okyere has not shown the trial court erred by granting Arellano’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Arellano operated an insurance business known as PTS Insurance. She paid rent to maintain offices in Oxnard and Santa Barbara, California for this business. She owned what is referred to in the insurance sales industry as a “book of business.” Arellano said her book of business generated “approximately one million dollars per year in premiums through Kemper Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company and Access General Insurance Company.” Okyere was also in the insurance business and wanted to purchase Arellano’s book to earn commissions.
Marriage of Hamm CA2/6
Shanna and Charles Hamm were married in 1998. There are three children of the marriage. The marriage was dissolved in 2009. Initially both parties shared legal and physical custody of all three children. In 2016, the oldest child elected to live with Shanna and the middle child elected to live with Charles. Only the youngest child splits his time between both parents. The oldest child became emancipated in October 2017. The Ventura County Department of Child Support Services (the Department) has been providing services to the children since 2008.
Charles brought a motion in his family law case seeking damages from Shanna for misrepresenting health and medical insurance costs on 10 occasions, and inducing the court to issue child support orders and deny modifications based on those misrepresentations. Charles also sought damages from the Department for failing to disclose the fraud to the court when it was discovered.
P. v. Martinez CA2/4
Appellant Jesus Martinez violated his probation. The trial court reinstated probation after appellant agreed to waive 553 days of custody credit he had accrued and to participate in a 180-day residential drug treatment program.
Appellant subsequently committed another probation violation. At the revocation hearing, appellant requested credit for the 180 days he represented he had spent in the court-ordered residential drug treatment program. The trial court denied the request, reinstated appellant’s original sentence of five years, and awarded him a total of 192 days of custody credit.
Appellant now contends that he should have received an additional 180 days of credit for the time he spent in the residential treatment program. In the alternative, he requests a remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the program was custodial in nature. We agree with appellant that he is entitled to credit for time he spent in a custodial program; his waiver of the 553 days o
Vergara v. Loeb CA2/5
Plaintiff Sofia Vergara sued her former fiancé, defendant Nicholas Loeb, for breach of contract and malicious prosecution based on his failed attempts to gain custody and control of two cryopreserved pre-embryos the parties created while they were engaged. In response, Loeb filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16), the so-called anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court found that Vergara’s claims were based on Loeb’s protected activity, but denied the motion because it concluded she had shown a probability of success on the merits of her claims.
In re A.P. CA2/6
On January 31, 2017, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant A.P., a 13-year-old minor, committed the felony offense of driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1); and the misdemeanor offense of driving a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license (id., § 12500, subd. (a); count 2). The petition did not allege that the value of the vehicle exceeded $950.
On February 27, a second Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed. It alleged that appellant committed the felony offense of driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1); fled a pursuing officer’s motor vehicle (id., § 2800.1, subd. (a); count 2); and possessed burglar’s tools (Pen. Code, § 466; count 3)). Once again, the petition did not allege that the value of the vehicle exceeded $950.
P. v. Carreno CA2/2
In 1996 Candelario Carreno (under the name Alvaro Barras Perez) pleaded guilty to one count of possession of cocaine base for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. Carreno served his sentence, and in 2017 filed a motion to vacate his plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1). The superior court denied the motion, emphasizing it had been 21 years since Carreno had entered his plea. Carreno appeals.
We conclude the superior court’s focus on the length of time between appellant’s plea and his request for relief under section 1473.7 as the basis for denying the motion, together with its lack of findings regarding the grounds for the motion, demonstrate that the court misconstrued the requirements for relief under section 1473.7 and failed to properly consider appellant’s motion on its merits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the matter to the superior court for a hearing on the merits of the motion.
P. v. Casique CA2/5
Defendant Ernest Casique appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. Defendant was convicted of three counts of premeditated attempted murder pursuant to Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a), and all alleged firearm and gang enhancements were found to be true.
Defendant contends the trial court erred by allowing a witness to testify without first conducting a hearing to determine whether the witness’s testimony was based on personal knowledge. Defendant also contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury on a kill zone theory with CALJIC No. 8.66.1. Alternatively, he asserts remand is necessary to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike firearm enhancements pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (h). Finally, defendant requests the trial court recalculate his presentence conduct credits which the court had improperly denied under section 2933.2. The Attorney General concedes that defendant’s latter two arguments ar
Listings: 71583
Regular: 71583
Last listing added: 03/29/19