CA Unpub Decisions

Princess L., who is now 10 years old, was adjudicated a dependent of the juvenile court in March 2015. Her mother, J.K., had a history of noncompliance with treatment for her mental health condition, which was diagnosed as bipolar disorder with dependent and borderline personality characteristics. Princess had limited contact with her father. He did not participate in reunification services. The court placed Princess in the care of her maternal grandparents (Grandparents).
During the first six-month review period, J.K. exhibited volatile behavior and violent outbursts. In early 2015, J.K. came to Grandparents' home unannounced several times. On one occasion, J.K. was yelling and Princess locked herself in the bathroom. She asked Grandmother, "Why don't I have a normal mom? When will this be over?" On another occasion, J.K. was swearing and yelling. Princess told the social worker her mother's behaviors made her feel sad and scared.

Appellant Brian J. (father) appeals from the June 21, 2016, order terminating his parental rights to Ashley J. and Jacob J. Father contends the order must be reversed because the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of abandonment, termination of parental rights is not in the best interest of the children, and the petition by the stepfather to adopt the children was withdrawn and the case dismissed. As discussed below, we reverse.

Appellant Vipul Patel appeals a judgment on reserved issues in the dissolution of his marriage to respondent Neena Patel. On appeal, he contends that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a new trial. A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial. (Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 18.) An abuse of discretion occurs if, in light of the applicable law and considering all of the relevant circumstances, the court’s decision exceeds the bounds of reason and results in a miscarriage of justice. (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478-479.) We find no abuse of discretion, and we will therefore affirm the judgment.

This appeal arises from an order to sell property issued in a dissolution action that began in 2005 between Wylmina Hettinga (Hettinga) and respondent Timothy Loumena (Loumena). During the course of the proceedings, the court ordered the family home sold as community property. Hettinga, in violation of a court order, and in breach of her fiduciary duty, transferred her interest in the property to appellant Pacific Almaden Investments, LLC (Pacific Almaden). Pacific Almaden is allegedly a shell entity used by Hettinga for a variety of fraudulent purposes, including obstructing court orders and getting around her vexatious litigant status. After the trial court ordered Pacific Almaden to be joined to the family law proceeding, the court expunged a lis pendens recorded by Pacific Almaden and directed that the property be sold. Pacific Almaden appeals, arguing that the trial court should have continued the hearing where it ordered the property sold because Pacific Almaden’s time to

On October 2, 2015, at approximately 2:23 p.m., a campus assistant at Roosevelt High School in Fresno reported to the school resource officer (SRO) that he caught appellant and two other students smoking marijuana in a bathroom. The campus assistant also told the SRO that one student possessed marijuana and a pocket knife.
The SRO contacted the three students. He searched appellant and found a pocket knife with a blade three and one-half inches long and a brown leafy substance that the SRO believed was marijuana. The SRO cited and released appellant.
On May 16, 2016, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a wardship petition that charged appellant with possession of a weapon on school grounds and possession of marijuana on school grounds (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (e)), a misdemeanor.
On October 19, 2016, appellant entered his plea to the possession of a weapon count and the remaining count was dismissed.

Appellant is presently serving a third strike sentence for second degree burglary. (§ 460, subd. (b).) In 1996, he entered a Sears department store, picked up a $200 tool set, marked it with security tape suggesting it had been paid for, and exited the store without paying for the item. Due to appellant’s prior strike convictions, appellant received 25 years to life plus an additional two years resulting from prior prison term enhancements, and has been incarcerated ever since.

Defendant and appellant, Robert Hohn, complained to departments of the Corona city government (the city) about allegedly illegal activities on property owned by plaintiff and respondent, AVMGH II Limited Partnership (AVMGH or the partnership). Robert Hohn is a limited partner of AVMGH, but does not have authority to act on its behalf. The city inspected the property, found numerous non-complying uses, and began the process of obtaining compliance. As a result, some businesses which had been paying rent to AVMGH relocated.

On September 14, 2016, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Carol L. (mother) to her son, D.T., freeing the child for adoption by the paternal grandfather and step-grandmother (paternal grandparents), with whom he had been living for more than two years. Mother, who visited regularly with D.T. during dependency proceedings, contends the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial parental relationship exception to the termination of parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.

A jury convicted defendants and appellants Ryan Morrison and Terry Hewitt (sometimes collectively defendants) of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 2) and possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count 3). As to count 1, the jury further found that the burglary was of an inhabited dwelling house (Pen. Code, § 460) and that a person other than an accomplice was present during its commission (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)).

On December 31, 2013, Janet and William Cumming filed a petition, pursuant to Probate Code sections 16080 and 17200, subdivision (b)(5), (6), (7) and (10), to compel Steven, as the acting successor cotrustee of the trust established by their parents, the Robert Bruce Cumming and Lois Wielen Cumming Trust, to report information concerning the trust; to account; to allow beneficiaries and/or the other successor cotrustee reasonable access to view trust property; and/or to remove the acting successor cotrustee and appoint a private professional second successor trustee. The petition alleged, among other things, that Steven, as acting successor cotrustee, had maintained exclusive control over the trust’s assets, had used them for his own benefit, and had refused requests by Janet for information concerning the trust’s assets.

daughter, Adrienne Nelson, and defendant, who was her daughter’s boyfriend. Fourshay argued with defendant and then told him to leave. Defendant and Nelson then left. While they were away they argued and defendant pushed and grabbed Nelson “to keep her from leaving.” About 4:00 p.m., defendant returned without Nelson and told Fourshay something like, “[T]he war is on. You are going to die,” and left on foot. Later, she saw defendant through the bedroom window, where he was standing outside the home. Defendant yelled at her and asked where Nelson was. Fourshay went into the living room to call 911. Defendant forced open a locked door between the living room area and the garage. Fourshay saw defendant standing in the doorway, holding what appeared to be a knife behind his back. Defendant eventually left and Fourshay called 911.

This case concerns the right of a landlord to set a market rate rent when the original tenant of a rent controlled apartment leaves and another occupant continues to reside in the unit. The specific question presented is whether landlords may be required to have their rights under a state law determined in local rent board administrative proceedings, subject to judicial review, or must be permitted to bypass administrative proceedings and bring the issue to court in the first instance. The trial court in the present case dismissed the landlord’s complaint for declaratory relief, holding that the landlord failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Although we disagree with appellant’s view that it would never be proper for a trial court to deny declaratory relief in such cases, in circumstances of this case we find the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we will reverse.

Cheyenne Mateo Fuimaono appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of first degree murder, assault on a child with force likely to produce great bodily injury resulting in death, and child abuse. Fuimaono argues the trial court erred by admitting his statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda), and insufficient evidence supports his conviction for assault on a child with force likely to produce great bodily injury resulting in death. Additionally, Fuimaono requests we review the transcript of the in camera hearing on his motion pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). As we explain below, Fuimaono’s contentions are meritless, and our review of the in camera hearing transcript reveals no procedural irregularities.

Appointed counsel for defendant Rebecca Ann Kale has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.