Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In the late hours of December 5, 2000, Tramell Vernon Taylor, Darryl McCoy, and Dewayne Richardson planned to rob several men at a nearby motel, including Kendall M., a drug dealer. In the early morning of December 6, 2000, a gun battle ensued at the motel, resulting in Kendall being shot and McCoy being fatally shot. Taylor and Richardson were believed to be members or associates of a gang, while Kendall was affiliated with a rival gang. Extensive ballistics evidence was collected, indicating multiple firearms were involved in the shooting.Taylor and Richardson were convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and the first-degree murder of McCoy. The jury found true a gang enhancement and a special circumstance that the murder was committed during a robbery. Taylor was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the murder, with a concurrent 12-year sentence for the conspiracy. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions with minor corrections to the abstract of judgment.Taylor filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, which the trial court initially denied without a statement of reasons. On appeal, the denial was reversed, and the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the trial court denied the petition, finding that Taylor could still be convicted of murder under the provocative act doctrine, as he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court had misconstrued the elements of the applicable offense. The appellate court held that the trial court's findings did not support a valid theory of murder under current law. The order denying the petition was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "People v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Ahmad Skouti and Faten M. Kour purchased a citrus orchard using proceeds from a jury award for the destruction of their grapevines. Under Internal Revenue Code section 1033, taxpayers can avoid recognizing gain from involuntary conversions if they purchase similar property. The Franchise Tax Board (Board) determined that the citrus orchard was not similar to the grapevines and denied the plaintiffs the benefit of section 1033. After exhausting administrative remedies, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the trial court seeking a tax refund.The Superior Court of Sacramento County reviewed the case. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Board’s motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motion, concluding that the citrus orchard, which included both land and mature trees, was not sufficiently similar to the grapevines to qualify for nonrecognition of gain under section 1033. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing with the Board that the properties were not similar under section 1033. The court held that the plaintiffs’ investment in grapevines, which are agricultural fixtures, was not equivalent to an investment in land with citrus trees. The court emphasized that the risks and management associated with grapevines were different from those associated with land containing citrus trees. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not achieve a sufficient continuity of investment to justify nonrecognition of the gain. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and the plaintiffs’ appeal was denied. View "Skouti v. Franchise Tax Board" on Justia Law

Officer Victor Quezada and his partner, Officer Diego Millan, were patrolling a known gang territory in Harbor City after dark. They encountered three young men, including L.G., who was 15 years old. Millan recognized one of the men as a gang member. The officers attempted to engage the group in conversation, but L.G. did not respond and avoided eye contact, which made the officers suspicious. They decided to conduct a search, and when they ordered the group to step out and raise their hands, L.G. ran and was later found with a gun.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled that the search was proper and denied L.G.'s motion to suppress the evidence. The court did not address the officers' commands to the youths during the encounter.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the search was improper because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain L.G. The court emphasized that nervousness and avoiding police interaction do not reasonably suggest criminal activity. The court found that the officers' commands and coordinated approach constituted a show of force that transformed a consensual encounter into a detention without proper justification.The court reversed the judgment, vacated the adjudication, and remanded the matter. The trial court was instructed to vacate its order denying L.G.'s motion to suppress the evidence and to enter a new order granting the motion. View "In re L.G." on Justia Law

The case involves a real estate dispute where plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth J. Catanzarite, alleged they were defrauded into exchanging their interests in an apartment complex for interests in a limited liability company. The dispute was ordered into arbitration at the plaintiffs' request, and the arbitrator ruled in favor of the defendant, Plantations at Haywood, LLC. Plantations then petitioned the court to confirm the arbitration award.The Superior Court of Orange County confirmed the arbitration award and granted Plantations' motion for sanctions against Catanzarite under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, imposing $37,000 in sanctions. The court found that Catanzarite's opposition to the petition was frivolous and factually unsupported. Catanzarite appealed the sanctions, arguing he was statutorily allowed to file an opposition and contest the arbitrator's award.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that Catanzarite's arguments were without merit and unsupported by existing law or any nonfrivolous extension of existing law. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's sanction award against Catanzarite. Additionally, the court granted Plantations' motion for sanctions on appeal, finding the appeal to be frivolous and without merit. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of sanctions to be awarded, with the option for Catanzarite to stipulate to the amount requested by Plantations. The order was affirmed, and Plantations was entitled to its costs on appeal. View "Plantations at Haywood 1, LLC v. Plantations at Haywood, LLC" on Justia Law

Mariano Albert Valdez was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for a murder he committed at age 17. In 2018, Valdez petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1), which allows juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP to seek resentencing after 15 years of incarceration. The trial court granted the petition and resentenced Valdez to 50 years to life. In 2024, Valdez filed another petition for resentencing, arguing that his 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP, citing People v. Heard, which held that denying resentencing relief to juvenile offenders sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP violates equal protection.The trial court construed Valdez's filing as a petition under section 1170(d)(10), which allows for resentencing after 20 years of imprisonment if the defendant was resentenced to LWOP or its functional equivalent. The trial court granted the petition, reasoning that Valdez's 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP and that excluding him from resentencing relief would violate equal protection.The People petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to deny Valdez's resentencing relief. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the reasoning in Heard does not apply to section 1170(d)(10) if the defendant was eligible for youth offender parole under the sentence imposed at resentencing under section 1170(d)(1). Since Valdez was eligible for youth offender parole under his 50-year-to-life sentence, it was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. Therefore, Valdez was not entitled to relief under section 1170(d)(10).The court granted the petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting Valdez resentencing relief and to enter a new order denying the petition for resentencing. View "P. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Richard Martinez, a licensed plumber, contracted with Gayle Jelley to construct a pool in her backyard for $26,900. Jelley made several payments totaling $9,000, but Martinez abandoned the project after partially completing the excavation and rebar installation. It was later discovered that Martinez's contractor's license had expired before the project began. The Department of Consumer Affairs, Contractors State Licensing Board (CSLB) confirmed that Martinez had never held a valid contractor's license and had previously received three administrative citations for unlicensed contracting.The People charged Martinez with grand theft, acting as a contractor without a license, requiring an excessive downpayment, and unlawfully receiving payments exceeding the work performed. Martinez was arraigned on December 9, 2021, and later filed a motion to dismiss based on a violation of his speedy trial rights, citing a four-and-a-half-year delay in prosecution. He argued that the delay resulted in the loss of key witnesses and evidence, causing actual prejudice to his defense.The Superior Court of Riverside County granted Martinez's motion to dismiss, citing the prosecution's lack of effort to arrest Martinez after the complaint was filed. The People appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by not requiring Martinez to demonstrate actual prejudice.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that Martinez failed to affirmatively demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the delay, as required under state constitutional law. The court also noted that the trial court did not conduct the necessary analysis of the four factors required to determine a federal speedy trial violation for the misdemeanor charges. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision in part and remanded the case with directions to conduct the proper analysis for the federal speedy trial claim on the misdemeanor charges and to deny the motion to dismiss on the felony charge. View "People v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Jesse Gonzalez, Jr. was convicted in 2012 of attempted deliberate premeditated murder and assault with a deadly weapon, with enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury and using a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to 17 years to life with the possibility of parole and credited with 700 days served. The sentence was later recalled, but the credit total remained unchanged. On direct appeal, the court corrected the sentence to life with the possibility of parole plus six years but did not address the credit count. Gonzalez filed a habeas corpus petition in 2022, claiming his credits were miscalculated. The trial court denied the petition, but the appellate court granted a partial remand for recalculating credits, denying Gonzalez's request to be present.The Superior Court of Imperial County recalculated the credits but initially made an error. After a letter from appellate counsel, the court corrected the credits to 771 days. Gonzalez appealed, arguing that the incorrect credit calculation was an unauthorized sentence and that he was entitled to full resentencing and to be present during the recalculation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that a full resentencing was not warranted because the correction of custody credits did not affect the overall sentence or require the exercise of judicial discretion. The court also concluded that Gonzalez's presence was not necessary for the recalculation of credits, as it was a ministerial act. The court found no prejudice to Gonzalez from the trial court's actions and affirmed the order. View "People v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Following a wildfire near their home, plaintiffs Hovik Gharibian and Caroline Minasian submitted a claim to their property insurer, Wawanesa General Insurance Company. Wawanesa paid the plaintiffs over $20,000 for professional cleaning services that were never used. Dissatisfied with the resolution, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Wawanesa for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Wawanesa’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs' insurance policy did not provide coverage for the claimed loss. The court determined that there was no evidence of "physical loss" as required by the policy. Plaintiffs appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a "direct physical loss to property" as required by their insurance policy. The court referenced the California Supreme Court's decision in Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Ins. Co., which clarified that "direct physical loss" requires a distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration to property. The court found that the wildfire debris did not cause such an alteration and could be easily cleaned or removed. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Wawanesa did not breach the insurance policy since the plaintiffs' claim was not covered. All remaining arguments were deemed moot. View "Gharibian v. Wawanesa Gen. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Caesar Elmi rejected a settlement offer from defendant Related Management Company, L.P. (Related) under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The case was resolved for less than the amount offered by Related, leading to a limitation on Elmi’s award of prejudgment costs and attorney fees to those incurred before the offer. Elmi later filed a motion seeking additional fees and costs incurred in enforcing the judgment, which the trial court denied, stating that Elmi was not entitled to any fees or costs after the date of the settlement offer.The Superior Court of Orange County denied Elmi’s motion for additional fees and costs, reasoning that section 998 precluded any fees or costs incurred after the settlement offer. Elmi appealed this decision, arguing that section 998 only applies to prejudgment costs and fees, not postjudgment costs incurred in enforcing the judgment.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Elmi, holding that postjudgment costs and fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not governed by section 998. The court noted that postjudgment costs and fees are distinct from prejudgment costs and fees and are governed by different laws, specifically section 685.040, which allows for the recovery of reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment, including attorney’s fees.The court reversed the trial court’s order denying Elmi’s motion for postjudgment fees and costs and remanded the case with instructions to reconsider the motion on its merits. Elmi was also entitled to recover his costs on appeal. View "Elmi v. Related Management Co., L.P." on Justia Law

In September 2016, a high school student, almost 16 years old, was involved in a fistfight during an art class. The teacher, who weighed 375 pounds and had a back condition, intervened to stop the fight. While pulling the larger boy away, the teacher lost his balance and fell onto the plaintiff, breaking the plaintiff’s leg. The plaintiff sued the teacher and the school district for negligence, arguing that the teacher should not have intervened due to his physical condition and that the school district failed to train teachers on safely handling physical altercations.The case was tried in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. After a 15-day trial, the jury viewed a video of the incident multiple times and concluded that neither the teacher nor the school district was negligent. The jury found that the plaintiff and the other boy were each 50 percent responsible for the harm. The plaintiff filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a motion for a new trial, both of which were denied by the trial court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, finding no error in the trial court’s decisions. The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict that neither the teacher nor the school district was negligent. The court also found no error in the trial court’s exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert witness and the refusal to give several special jury instructions requested by the plaintiff. The appellate court concluded that the standard instructions given were sufficient and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the trial court’s rulings. View "I.C. v. Compton Unified School Dist. et al." on Justia Law