Arthur Gilbert

The case involved defendant Green Newton, who was convicted of two counts of selling cocaine and received two three-year sentencing enhancements under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 based on his 2007 prior convictions for possession for sale and transportation of a controlled substance. Newton argued that one enhancement was improper because the sentence on the corresponding prior count had been stayed under Penal Code section 654, which bars multiple punishment for the same act. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's imposition of both enhancements, holding that section 11370.2 applies to prior convictions regardless of whether they resulted in imprisonment and that section 654 does not shield a defendant from enhancements based on stayed convictions when the enhancement statute does not reference it. The court reasoned that the plain language of the enhancement statute and precedent interpreting similar provisions allow use of the prior conviction for enhancement purposes even if punishment was stayed.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Hal Lee Moore, who drove at excessive speeds through city streets, ran a red light, and collided with other vehicles, killing one person and injuring another before fleeing the scene and resisting arrest. A jury convicted him of second degree murder based on implied malice, along with vehicular manslaughter and other charges, resulting in a sentence of 15 years to life. Moore appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the murder conviction and improper admission of his prior DUI conviction. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the facts demonstrated the defendant's subjective awareness of the high risk of death and wanton disregard for life, supporting implied malice even without intoxication or a police pursuit, and that the prior conviction was relevant to show knowledge of the risks and properly admitted under Evidence Code section 352.

criminal lawprocedure

In Radford v. Shehorn, two sisters disputed the distribution of assets from a family trust in probate court and reached a purported settlement during mediation consisting of a printed first page and a handwritten second page. One sister moved to enforce the agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, prompting a dispute over whether the first page (containing a waiver of mediation confidentiality) was part of the signed document and whether the mediator could submit a declaration on that point. The trial court admitted the mediator's declaration, found the agreement consisted of two pages, and granted the motion to enforce. The Court of Appeal held that the mediation confidentiality statutes barred admission of the mediator's testimony about the agreement but concluded the error was harmless because other declarations describing noncommunicative conduct sufficiently supported the trial court's finding of a two-page agreement. The judgment enforcing the settlement was affirmed.

procedurefamily law

In this case, plaintiff William Bookout sued multiple public entities including Caltrans, the County, the District, and the Railroad after his property flooded during rain events, alleging causes of action for inverse condemnation, nuisance, trespass, and negligence. The trial court granted nonsuit on the inverse condemnation claim and judgment on the pleadings on the tort claims, finding the three-year statute of limitations barred the action, that Bookout failed to prove causation by the public defendants, and that the Railroad was not a public entity subject to inverse condemnation. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the alleged flooding did not amount to control or possession of the property and thus triggered the three-year limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (j), that the same causation standards apply to both inverse condemnation and tort claims, and that the permanent structures creating the drainage issues constituted a permanent rather than continuous nuisance or trespass. The court further noted that Bookout's claims accrued by mid-2002 based on his own complaints and observations, making the 2006 filing untimely.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In the case In re Marriage of Hartmann, following a divorce and custody order granting the parties equal physical custody of their three daughters on alternating weeks, the wife appealed the denial of her motion to vacate a restraining order that barred her from interfering with the husband's custodial time. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, concluding it was neither ambiguous nor overbroad. The court reasoned that "interfere" is an ordinary English word appearing in contempt statutes and that the order was directed solely at the custody rights, distinguishing it from broader restraints on speech; it further noted that family courts may restrict speech to promote children's welfare.

family lawfree speech

The case involved survivors of two women killed in 2003 when an unreinforced masonry building collapsed during an earthquake suing the building's owners for negligence in failing to perform seismic retrofitting. The jury found the owners negligent, awarded noneconomic damages, and determined they were members of a joint venture in owning and maintaining the building, resulting in a judgment of joint and several liability. The owners appealed, arguing that a city ordinance set a 2018 deadline for retrofitting and that Civil Code sections limiting noneconomic damages applied. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the ordinance's compliance date did not shield the owners from liability for negligence occurring before that date and that joint venturers remain jointly and severally liable for noneconomic damages regardless of their individual interests.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved John Casey Friedeck, who pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance and was granted deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) conditioned on obtaining drug counseling. After failing to enroll in treatment and facing a new arrest, the trial court found him ineligible for Proposition 36 probation and sentenced him to two years in prison. Friedeck argued on appeal that his refusal of treatment under DEJ did not disqualify him from Proposition 36, which mandates probation for eligible nonviolent drug offenders unless they refuse treatment as a condition of probation. The court held that refusal of drug treatment under DEJ constitutes a refusal under section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(4), making the defendant ineligible, and affirmed the judgment by approving People v. Strong.

criminal law

The case involved Thomas Brooks, who was on probation for methamphetamine possession and had a physician's recommendation for medical marijuana under California's Compassionate Use Act. After being found with two pounds of marijuana, which the court determined was for sale rather than personal use, his probation was modified to prohibit any use or possession of controlled substances, including medical marijuana. Brooks argued that the probation condition could not bar doctor-recommended marijuana use, that there was no sufficient nexus to his offense, and that the ban constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court affirmed the modified probation, holding that trial courts have discretion to impose conditions prohibiting even lawful conduct when reasonably related to the crime or preventing future criminality, and that the condition here was justified by the defendant's attempt to conceal illegal activity behind the CUA. It rejected the constitutional claim, noting no evidence that medical marijuana was the only or best treatment and citing the defendant's history of substance issues.

criminal lawhealthcare

In People v. Townsend, the defendant appealed his commitment to the State Department of Mental Health as a Mentally Disordered Offender following his conviction for possessing Molotov cocktails, arguing that the offense did not qualify under the MDO Act as involving an implied threat to use force or violence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the commitment, holding that possession of these devices met the statutory criteria because they are inherently dangerous weapons with no legitimate non-criminal purpose. The court reasoned that Townsend's possession, combined with his paranoid delusions, statements that he carried them for self-protection against perceived neighborhood threats, and history of intending to use them against people, created an implied threat of violence likely to produce substantial physical harm. The opinion emphasized that such bombs are uniquely dangerous even when not ignited, and the defendant's mental disorder amplified the risk to public safety, including to law enforcement.

criminal law

The case involved Steven Allan Copass's convictions for evading a police officer with willful disregard for the safety of others under Vehicle Code section 2800.2 and driving with a suspended license. Copass appealed, arguing that his unsafe turn into traffic could not serve as a predicate offense because the pursuing officer had deactivated emergency lights during a brief period when he lost sight of the motorcycle. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence established a single continuous pursuit despite the momentary deactivation of lights and that multiple other Vehicle Code violations supported the finding of willful disregard. The court reasoned that section 2800.1 does not require continuous activation of lights and that any error regarding one predicate offense was harmless given the other violations presented to the jury.

criminal law

This case arose after a 2005 landslide in La Conchita injured plaintiffs or killed their relatives, leading them to sue Ventura County for dangerous condition of public property, nuisance, and inverse condemnation related to a retaining wall built after a 1995 landslide. The trial court granted the County's motion for summary adjudication based on design immunity under Government Code section 830.6, and after plaintiffs dismissed the inverse condemnation claim, they appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that an expert's conflicting declaration did not create a triable issue of fact due to unexplained inconsistencies with a prior report, and that the County's approved design had contemplated potential changes in conditions like soil drainage issues, preserving the immunity.

torts & liabilityproperty

In Burlage v. Superior Court, buyers of a house arbitrated a dispute with the seller over alleged failure to disclose encroachments of a pool and fence onto neighboring land, seeking damages measured at the time of sale. The arbitrator excluded evidence of a later lot line adjustment that resolved the encroachments and awarded the buyers approximately $1.5 million. The trial court vacated the award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that the arbitrator's refusal to hear evidence material to the amount of damages substantially prejudiced the seller's rights.

propertyprocedure

The case involved William Rands appealing a probate court order finding that his revocation of the Rands Family Trust was ineffective due to lack of capacity. The trust provided that a settlor's incapacity could be established by certifications from two physicians and that revocation of incapacity required similar certifications from two other physicians, with the trust remaining irrevocable during incapacity. The court affirmed the order, holding that the later physicians' certifications of competence were insufficient because neither physician was aware of the prior certifications of incompetence by William's treating physicians, Drs. Sobers and Sheehy, who had examined him over multiple years and documented cognitive deficits. The court relied on the trust's requirements for reliable evidence of capacity rather than an independent judicial finding under Probate Code section 811.

family lawproperty

In Cook v. Cook, the case involved a revocable trust established by Donald and Nancy Cook for their four children, which directed the trustee to offset any debts owed by beneficiaries against their trust distributions and included a no-contest clause that would disinherit anyone who contested or sought to invalidate trust provisions. Beneficiary Daniel Cook responded to a trustee's petition by arguing that certain loans to him were barred by the statute of limitations, were not properly documented, and could not be deducted from his share. The probate court ruled that Daniel's pleading violated the no-contest provision because it sought a distribution inconsistent with the trust's plain language requiring debt offsets. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the assertions directly opposed the trust terms regarding debt allocation rather than merely seeking interpretation under Probate Code section 21305.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned a minor, T.P., who admitted to misdemeanor street terrorism in juvenile court and was placed on formal probation, after which multiple petitions alleged further violations and offenses; the prosecutor declared him ineligible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) due to prior probation issues. The juvenile court agreed, finding that probation violations led to an implicit revocation. The Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that a probation violation finding is not equivalent to revocation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 790(a)(4), so T.P. remained statutorily eligible, and remanded for the court to assess suitability for DEJ.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether the prosecution could access transcripts of in camera hearings reviewing documents subpoenaed by the defense from third parties in a criminal prosecution for murder. The trial court ordered some transcripts unsealed after finding they did not reveal defense strategies. The Court of Appeal granted a writ of prohibition, directing the trial court to keep the transcripts sealed. The court reasoned that under Penal Code section 1326 and the holding in People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.), the prosecution generally may not learn the identity of subpoenaed parties or documents unless the defense intends to use them at trial, to protect defense work product and third-party privacy rights, with the prosecution's role limited to addressing court questions when necessary.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved buyers of a house who arbitrated a dispute with the seller over nondisclosure of property encroachments, resulting in an arbitrator awarding them about $1.5 million. The trial court vacated the award after the seller argued that the arbitrator improperly excluded evidence of a subsequent lot line adjustment that resolved the encroachments. The Court of Appeal affirmed the vacation, reasoning that the exclusion of this material evidence substantially prejudiced the seller's ability to dispute the damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, even though errors of law by arbitrators are generally not reviewable.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In Wood v. Santa Monica Escrow Co., the plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit against the escrow company defendant with prejudice after alleging claims including elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract arising from a loan transaction. The defendant unsuccessfully sought contractual attorney fees, and the plaintiff then moved for fees incurred in successfully opposing the defendant's appeal of that denial. The trial court denied the plaintiff's fee motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the defendant remained the prevailing party in the action overall. The court reasoned that, under precedents such as Presley and Mustachio, a party's success on an interim appeal regarding fees does not establish prevailing-party status for purposes of a contractual fee provision or Civil Code section 1717 when the underlying lawsuit has ended in dismissal; instead, the overall outcome controls.

procedure

In People v. Perez, the defendant pleaded guilty to second degree robbery and was placed on felony probation with a condition barring him from attending court hearings or being within 500 feet of any court unless he was a defendant or under subpoena. The trial court imposed the condition over the defendant's objection, but the appellate court struck it on appeal. The court reasoned that the broad restriction was not reasonably related to the robbery offense or to preventing future criminality, even considering the defendant's gang affiliations, and that it unduly limited access to public facilities and constitutionally protected activities without a sufficient showing of need. The opinion noted that narrower conditions could address concerns about witness intimidation or gang activity while allowing legitimate court access.

criminal lawcivil rights

In People v. Hirata, police obtained a September 4, 2007 search warrant for Derek Hirata's home and other locations based on a 53-page affidavit from a nine-month drug trafficking investigation, which described a single June 14, 2007 transaction involving Hirata but no subsequent activity at his residence. Hirata was charged with conspiracy and various drug offenses after the search uncovered methamphetamine and other substances. The trial court granted Hirata's motion to quash the warrant and suppress the evidence, concluding the information was stale, and dismissed the case when the prosecution could not proceed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, ruling that the absence of facts showing drug activity by Hirata after June 14 made probable cause stale by the warrant's issuance date and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply given the long delay without ongoing evidence.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights