People v. Jones, C059440, concerned a challenge to a conviction and sentence of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm and other crimes. In affirming, the court held that the information in the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not stale and supported the trial court's probable cause finding. Also, defendant is barred from arguing that the sentence violated Penal Code sectin 654 because the trial court sentenced him within the maximum term negotiated in the plea agreement. The court also held that the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Lastly, the court held that defendant may be eligible for additional presentence custody credit if a prior serious felony conviction is stricken for that purpose.
Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, B215096, concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of an executor's petition and motion to leave to amend the complaint in the individual action to allege a conspiracy claim against the company's corporate counsel and two attorneys, and the trial court's dismissal of the executor's derivative action against the attorneys on behalf of the company, in the executor's suit against defendant for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud in connection with the sale of decedent's company. In reversing, the court held that the trial court erred in denying the estate leave to amend the complaint to allege a conspiracy claim. The court held that the estate has standing to maintain a derivative action on behalf of the company. Also, remand is necessary for further consideration whether the attorneys' inability to disclose privileged information bars the estate's derivative claims against them under McDermott, Will & Emery. Lastly, none of the other grounds advanced by the attorneys supports an order sustaining their demurrer to the derivative complaint.
California Oak Found. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, A122511, concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate seeking to compel the Regents of the University of California to rescind certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for seven related projects at the University of California at Berkeley, and its approval of the proposed student athlete center. In affirming, the court held that, while the athlete center is subject to the Alquist-Priolo Act based on its proposed location within an earthquake fault zone, the Regents could properly find the athlete center will not be an "addition" or "alteration" to the University's California Memorial Stadium as defined by the statute, and thus is not subject to the statute's value restrictions on certain projects coming within those definition. The court also held that the Regents acted in accordance with CEQA in certifying the EIR because it contains sufficient information regarding the projects' likely environmental impacts, as well as feasible alternatives to or mitigation measures for those projects to avoid or minimize the identified impacts.
- Full text of People v. Jones, C059440
- Full text of California Oak Found. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, A122511
- Full text of Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, B215096