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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.