Hire corporate lawyer
On automatic appeal to the court, defendant challenged his conviction and sentence of death, from the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, of two counts of first degree murder, with a multiple-murder special circumstance, and one count of second degree murder. The hire corporate lawyer
helps business person in litigations.
Within three weeks after being paroled from state prison, where he had been serving a sentence for voluntary manslaughter, defendant killed three more people: two with a shotgun, and one by strangulation and stabbing. At trial, the disputed issues largely concerned defendant's mental states and the existence of mitigating circumstances warranting a punishment other than death. After his convictions, the first jury was unable to reach a penalty verdict. During voir dire for the penalty retrial, the prosecutor revealed an acute sensitivity to the presence of Hispanics on the jury panel and an evident belief that Hispanics would not be favorable jurors for the prosecution. Responding to defendant's Wheeler motions, the prosecutor offered different reasons for exercise of his peremptory challenges. After rejecting defendant's various challenges to the guilt phase of the trial, the court affirmed the convictions. However, the court reversed the sentence of death, holding that the trial court's denial of the Wheeler motions unreasonable in light of the record; a record which showed the prosecutor improperly excused at least one juror because of his Hispanic ancestry.
The court affirmed the judgment as to the guilt verdicts and the special circumstance finding, but reversed as to the sentence of death.
Defendants, several mobilehome dealers, park managers, and owners, appealed an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied their motion for attorney fees under Civ. Code, § 798.85, after plaintiff mobilehome dealer voluntarily dismissed antitrust, unfair competition, and other claims against them.
The complaint alleged an illegal kickback scheme in connection with mobilehome sales. Some defendants were voluntarily dismissed after a misjoinder argument was raised. The trial court concluded that the parties who had been dismissed were the prevailing parties as defined in § 798.85 but that they were not entitled to fees because the case did not arise out of the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), Civ. Code, § 798 et seq. The reviewing court affirmed, concluding that the parties' dispute was not one within the scope of the MRL, which governed the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents. Although some of the allegations in the operative complaint dealt with purported wrongful activity that affected park residents and homeowners, such as illegal eviction of park tenants, the complaining dealer sought to protect its own economic interests and did not act to protect the tenants' interests. Because the case did not involve a landlord/tenant dispute, it did not arise in the context of the relationships and claims addressed by the MRL, and the trial court's denial of attorney fees was therefore proper.
The court affirmed the trial court's order.