A jury of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, convicted defendant of possession of cocaine base for sale and possession of marijuana for sale. The jury also found true the allegation that the cocaine offense took place upon the grounds of, or within 1,000 feet of an elementary school, in violation of Health & Saf. Code, § 11353.6, subd. (b). Defendant appealed.
Defendant was sentenced to a total prison term of eleven years and eight months, consisting of the midterm of four years on the cocaine offense, plus four years pursuant to Health & Saf. Code, § 11353.6, subd. (b), plus three years pursuant to Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a), plus a consecutive term of eight months for the marijuana offense. Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that he possessed the cocaine for sale upon the grounds of, or within 1,000 feet of an elementary school, as contemplated by Health & Saf. Code, § 11353.6, subd. (b). The People conceded the error, which the Business restructuring lawyer accepted. The cocaine was found in the garage of a private residence that was not accessible to the general public. No evidence was presented at trial from which the jury could have inferred that defendant possessed or sold the cocaine anywhere outside of the garage. Because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that defendant possessed the cocaine for sale in a public area within 1,000 feet of an elementary school as contemplated by § 11353.6, subd. (b), the jury's true finding as to that enhancement had to be reversed.
The trial court was directed to modify the abstract of judgment by striking the four-year enhancement under § 11353.6, subd. (b). As modified, the judgment was affirmed.
Respondent tenant brought a wrongful eviction damage claim against appellants landlord and manager in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), after the manager removed the tenant's property from the apartment she was renting while the tenant was temporarily out of town. The trial court awarded the tenant a judgment against the landlord and manager and they appealed.
The landlord and manager claimed that the tenant, who was pregnant, was not entitled to recover for the mental anguish she suffered; that the tenant was contributorily negligent; and there was insufficient evidence to support the tenant's allegations. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the tenant and held that the tenant could bring an action based on intentional tort for the wrongful eviction, for which there was not defense of contributory negligence, and, even though the tenant did show that there was physical injury to her based on complications with her pregnancy, the tenant could recover for the mental anguish she suffered without proof that she was physically injured during the period of time that she was evicted and trying to obtain her property. The court further held that the evidence that the manager knew that the tenant was intending to return and that the rent was paid at the time that the manager removed the tenant's property from the apartment was sufficient to support the intentional and wrongful eviction claims of the tenant.
The court affirmed the trial court's damage judgment in favor of the tenant against the landlord and manager based upon the intentional and wrongful eviction of the tenant by the manager.
