This case involved Force Framing, Inc., a subcontractor on a condominium construction project, suing Chinatrust Bank for a bonded stop notice after the project owner failed to pay for services. The trial court granted summary judgment to Chinatrust, ruling that Force Framing failed to comply with statutory requirements by serving the required 20-day preliminary notice on East West Bank instead of the actual lender, Chinatrust, and that the subcontractor had a duty to verify the lender's identity through county records. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Force Framing had a good faith belief that East West Bank was the lender based on information provided by the owner, allowing service on the reputed lender under the statute.
In Berman v. Cate, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate after the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation extended his parole term from three to five years following his guilty plea to lewd acts on a child under 14, seeking to enforce an alleged term of his plea agreement. The trial court granted the petition and directed the Department to release him from parole immediately. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, concluding that a three-year parole term was neither a negotiated term of the plea agreement nor one that could lawfully have been negotiated, and that any misadvisement regarding parole on the plea form did not entitle the petitioner to relief because he failed to allege sufficient prejudice. The court noted that a habeas corpus petition in the sentencing court would have been the appropriate procedural vehicle but addressed the merits anyway.
In People v. Nakai, a Riverside County jury convicted defendant of two counts of attempting to send harmful matter to a minor with intent to seduce, based on his online chats and image transmissions to a Perverted Justice volunteer posing as a 12-year-old girl; he was acquitted of attempting a lewd act with a child under 14 and received probation including sex offender registration. Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court should have instructed on the lesser offense of attempting to distribute harmful matter to a minor, should have excluded the chat logs as confidential communications under Penal Code section 632, and that venue was improper because his acts occurred in San Bernardino County. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting each contention after analyzing the jury instructions, the admissibility of the communications, and jurisdictional rules. The opinion addresses the statutory definitions of confidential communications and the application of Proposition 8's evidence rules but finds no reversible error.
In People v. Sanderson, a jury convicted the defendant of two counts of criminal threats under Penal Code section 422 based on statements made during a telephone call after an altercation at a residence. The trial court denied the defendant's Pitchess motion seeking discovery of the arresting officers' personnel files for alleged dishonesty, finding no good cause shown because the defense merely denied the threats without presenting a plausible alternative factual scenario. The court also denied a section 1118.1 motion for acquittal on one count, determining that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full, holding that the trial court's rulings on both motions were within its discretion and supported by the record.
In People v. Murphy, the defendant was convicted by a jury of procuring or offering false information for filing, insurance fraud by false claim, and insurance fraud by false statement after she reported her vehicle as stolen following a single-car accident and submitted an insurance claim. The trial court imposed three years of probation with a 180-day jail term. On appeal, the defendant argued that the felony filing offense was preempted by more specific misdemeanor statutes and that the trial court should have given an additional jury instruction on count 2 requiring a finding that she was not entitled to payment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full, concluding that the more general felony statute was not preempted and that the existing jury instructions sufficiently conveyed the required elements for the false-claim conviction.
In People v. Ochoa, the defendant was convicted after jury trials of carjacking, attempted robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and active participation in a criminal street gang, with gang enhancements under Penal Code section 186.22(b) found true on the carjacking and firearm counts. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the true findings on the gang enhancements, struck the prior prison term enhancements that had never been tried or found true, and ordered an award of custody credits. The court reasoned that the evidence, including the defendant's gang membership and expert testimony on the gang's signature crimes, was insufficient to show that the offenses were committed for the benefit of or with the specific intent to promote the gang.
