Corporate business lawyer
Defendant sought review of his convictions and sentence for nine counts of second-degree murder following a jury trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California). Defendant also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Defendant, a licensed obstetrician, was convicted of multiple counts of the following offenses: second-degree murder, aiding and abetting the practice of medicine without a license, conspiracy to practice medicine without a license, preparing and presenting false insurance claims, grand theft, and perjury. Defendant appealed his murder convictions and sentence and also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court affirmed the judgment and denied the petition. Regarding the appeal, the court held that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with malice aforethought when he caused the deaths of several patients and that he was not merely negligent. The Corporate business lawyer also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of an uncharged crime and a malpractice case that had been brought against defendant. Further, the court found that defendant’s forty-five years-to-life sentence was proportional. Regarding the habeas petition, the court found that defendant failed to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel prior to or during trial.
The court affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentence for nine counts of second-degree murder because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and the sentence was proportional. The court denied defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
Appellant lessors filed an action in the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), seeking declaratory relief involving their rights under a contract of conditional sale of the business and equipment on the premises leased to respondent lessees. The lessees also filed an action for damages arising from the forcible entry and unlawful detainer of the premises. Judgment was entered in favor of the lessees, and the lessors appealed.
In the course of operating a business,Personal Finance tips the lessees incurred obligations to third persons for which an action was commenced against them in court, and an attachment was issued against “goods, wares and merchandise” of the lessees located on the leased property. The lessors claimed that the lessees had violated the lease because they incurred the obligations on which the attachment was based in the lessors’ name and credit, that the agreement was no longer in effect, and that the lessors were entitled to regain possession of the premises and business. In the second action, the lessees claimed damages from the lessors for ousting and excluding them from possession of the premises and business, asserting no breach of the lease or agreement. The court found that there had been no breach of the lease or agreement, that the merchandise was not bought in the lessors’ name or on their credit, that the levy of the attachment did not breach the lease, that the lessors ousted and excluded the lessees from possession without right, that the lessees had not abandoned the premises or their rights under the lease, and that the lessors were liable in damages to the lessees for their conduct.
The court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of the lessees.
