CA Unpub Decisions

K.T. appeals from an order terminating his status as a nonminor dependent of the juvenile court and dismissing his case pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 391. K.T. contends the juvenile court erred by (1) denying his request for a continuance of the termination hearing; and (2) dismissing his case when it was in his best interest to remain a court dependent. The Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) disputes both contentions, and also argues that the dependency was properly dismissed because K.T. left his foster care placement and refused to participate in services. We affirm the challenged order.

After defendant Eric Chester was stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, a dog sniff revealed there were narcotics in his vehicle. Chester was charged with drug-related offenses, and after moving unsuccessfully to suppress evidence, he pleaded no contest to a felony count of possession of methamphetamine for sale and admitted he had suffered a prior strike. He was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison. On appeal, his sole claim is that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress because the police officer who pulled him over deliberately prolonged the stop to allow the K-9 unit to arrive. We affirm.

A jury found Loren Rodriguez-Martinez guilty of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), and found true the allegation of substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)). The court sentenced Rodriguez-Martinez to a prison term of eight years.
Rodriguez-Martinez appeals. He contends his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to: (1) questions about a witness’s age; and (2) the prosecutor’s closing argument that Rodriguez-Martinez had a propensity to commit the charged offense. Rodriguez-Martinez also argues the court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the upper term of eight years in prison.

Plaintiff Dilip Gunawardena appeals from a defense judgment, entered after a jury trial, in a vehicle personal injury case. Plaintiff raises a single issue on appeal—that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a videotaped deposition. We affirm.
On September 26, 2011, plaintiff and defendant John Antracoli were involved in a low speed, rear-end collision. Plaintiff’s car sustained minimal damage, and plaintiff initially said he had “just a few bruises, arms, legs. Nothing to write home about.” However, after he moved his car off the freeway and onto a parking lot, he claimed he “experienced this terrible, terrific, horrible, stab of neck pain,” when he turned his head to the right. He was taken by ambulance to Stanford Hospital and examined; X-rays showed no broken bones. Although his neck pain persisted, the last time plaintiff sought medical treatment for the injury was November 29, 2011.
Two years later, in September 2013, plaintiff sued defendant

The City and County of San Francisco (the City) approved construction of a three-unit condominium project proposed by real parties in interest Jeremy Ricks, Tracy Kirkham and Joe Cooper on Telegraph Hill at 115 Telegraph Boulevard. Appellant Protect Telegraph Hill argues that the approval was unlawful because an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project should have been prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We conclude no review was necessary under CEQA because the project was categorically exempt from review and no unusual circumstances exist to override the exemption on the basis the project will have a significant effect on the environment. We also conclude the city permissibly approved a conditional use authorization for the project. The superior court’s order denying a petition for writ of mandamus is affirmed.

Barbara Lynch and Thomas Frick (collectively, respondents) prevailed before the superior court in a mandamus action challenging three conditions the California Coastal Commission (Commission) imposed on their coastal development permit amendment. The superior court later entered an order awarding respondents' attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and Government Code section 800. The Commission separately appealed both the judgment granting respondents a writ of mandamus and the order awarding respondents attorney fees.

In 2005 Jorge Vargas stole 32 bags of avocados. Vargas entered a negotiated guilty plea to felony grand theft of avocados, and the trial court imposed a stipulated 16-month lower prison term. In 2014 Proposition 47 went into effect, reclassifying certain felonies as misdemeanors (Pen. Code, § 1170.18; People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089), including theft of property valued at no more than $950 (§ 490.2, subd. (a)). In 2015 Vargas filed a petition asking the court to designate his offense a misdemeanor, recall the sentence, and resentence him under Penal Code section 1170.18. The court ultimately denied the petition, concluding Vargas had failed to prove that the value of the avocados was less than $950.

This case involves flood damage after a heavy rainstorm to property owned by Jerry Preece, Jr. and his corporation, J.R. Preece, Inc. (together, Preece), in Imperial Valley. Preece sued the Imperial Irrigation District (District) and the State of California (State) for dangerous condition of public property, nuisance, and inverse condemnation. A jury found the District not liable for dangerous condition of public property and nuisance. However, after the jury's verdicts, the trial court found the District liable for inverse condemnation and entered judgment against the District in the amount of $916,000, concluding the District was 50 percent at fault for Preece's damages. The trial court also awarded Preece attorney's fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

Defendant and appellant Pedro Garcia appeals from the trial court’s sentencing order after the court granted his petition for recall of sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. We direct that the abstract of judgment be modified to show that the execution of sentence on counts 2 and 4 is stayed pursuant to section 654.

Lowthorp Richards Mcmillan Miller & Templeman, John H. Howard; Ferguson Case Orr Paterson, Wendy C. Lascher and John A. Hribar for Real Parties in Interest. Petitioner, the City of Fontana (City), challenges a trial court order denying its motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication. Real parties in interest, John J. Caceres, Rianna Caceres, and Cynthia Duran (real parties), sued City for dangerous condition of public property and related claims after a fatal traffic collision at an intersection controlled by City. Although our analysis of the issues presented by the petition differ in some respects from the trial court’s, we now explain why denial of City’s motion was proper.

Appellant/defendant Matthew Najera robbed a store clerk in Bakersfield and escaped. Several hours later, Officers Martin and Sims attempted to contact him because he matched the suspect’s description. The officers reported that defendant resisted arrest and fled. A short time later, Officer Messick and Mundhenke attempted to take defendant into custody. They reported that he resisted, but the officers were able to subdue and arrest him. The robbery victim later positively identified defendant.

Adrian Luis Chaparro appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a negotiated plea of no contest. He obtained a certificate of probable cause based on a supposed grievance regarding the calculation of presentence custody credits. On appeal, however, Chaparro raises issues pertaining to the circumstances under which his plea was entered and accepted. We find the claims to be meritless and thus affirm the judgment.

Defendant Donald Williams, Jr. appeals his sentence following his entry of a no contest plea to second degree burglary. He contends three conditions of his mandatory supervision are, facially, unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

After the Far Northern Regional Center (FNRC) asserted a change in the law and declined to pay for services ordered in a final order by an administrative law judge (ALJ), Christian Gulbransen, an individual with disabilities, filed a lawsuit against FNRC, case No. 151024, seeking to enforce the ALJ’s order and also asserting additional causes of action. The trial court ordered FNRC to pay for some of the services and directed that additional determinations be made through the administrative hearing process set forth in the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, Welfare & Institutions Code section 4500 et seq. Gulbransen subsequently filed a second lawsuit against FNRC, case No. 153745, claiming FNRC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by not complying with the ALJ order. The trial court consolidated the two lawsuits.