CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Ruhangiz Raimova appeals from orders: (1) denying his requests for a preliminary injunction; (2) denying his applications for a writ of possession; (3) denying his request to disqualify the trial judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6; and (4) denying his motion to stay the action pending resolution of his two appeals.[1] In plaintiff’s companion appeal, case No. G053020, we rejected plaintiff’s first three challenges. An order denying a motion to stay is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal.

Plaintiff Ruhangiz Raimova appeals from several orders denying his requests for a preliminary injunction, applications for a writ of possession, and a request to disqualify the trial judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.[1] The court did not err in denying the requests for a preliminary injunction. We affirm the portions of the orders addressing the preliminary injunction. The portions of the court’s orders denying plaintiff’s applications for a writ of possession and the peremptory challenge of the judge are not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss plaintiff’s purported appeal on these issues.

Appellant, James V., challenges the order reappointing respondent, the Kings County Public Guardian (Public Guardian), as his conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 5000 et seq.) Appellant contends the trial court erred in setting the matter for a court trial based on counsel’s representation rather than obtaining an on-the-record personal waiver of the right to a jury trial from appellant or finding that appellant lacked the capacity to make a jury waiver. Appellant further argues he was prejudiced at trial by case-specific, and therefore inadmissible, hearsay statements made by the Public Guardian’s expert witness.
We conclude the trial court erred in not obtaining appellant’s on-the-record personal waiver of a jury trial and that this error requires reversal. Accordingly, we will not address appellant’s other contention.

Appellant, St. John Missionary Baptist Church of Bakersfield, California (St. John), is a congregational Baptist church. It is organized as a religious corporation and is governed by a constitution and bylaws. Respondents are members of St. John who became dissatisfied with their pastor, Antonio Alfred (Pastor).
Respondents petitioned the trial court to order the St. John Board of Deacons to call a meeting to vote on whether to remove the Pastor. The court granted the petition and further ordered that a referee be appointed to oversee the meeting, conduct the vote, count the votes, and report the result of the vote in writing.
St. John provided the referee with a list of members eligible to vote. On the day of the election, if either St. John or respondents’ representative objected to a voter, that voter cast a sealed provisional ballot. The regular votes were counted and, because the vote was close, it was necessary to count the provisional ballots as well.

A jury found Michael James Balden guilty of illegal possession of a firearm and two misdemeanor drug offenses. He argues the trial court abused its discretion in allowing amendment of the information at the close of the prosecution’s evidence to add a count for misdemeanor possession of hydrocodone. He also argues there was insufficient evidence to support the imposition of an enhancement. We reject each of these arguments.
However, we requested the parties brief the question of whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the testimony that led to the amendment of the information to add the possession count. We conclude this is the rare case where an ineffective assistance of counsel argument can prevail on direct appeal instead of a habeas corpus proceeding as there is no possible explanation for defense counsel’s failure to object. As a result, we reverse the conviction for the possession count, and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencin

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary (Pen. Code,[1] § 459; count 1), and to resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted a strike prior dating back to 2006 (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). In return for defendant's guilty plea, the court struck the strike prior, sentenced defendant to 365 days of local time and granted defendant three years' probation.
On appeal, defendant objects to probation condition 6(n), which requires defendant "[s]ubmit person, vehicle, residence, property, personal effects, computers and recordable media . . . to search at any time with or without a warrant, and with or without reasonable cause, when required by [probation officer] or law enforcement officer." (Italics added.) Specifically, defendant challenges the italicized portion of condition 6(n) concerning computers and recordable media. He contends its imposition is unreasonable and violates his constitutional right to privacy because "[t]here was no evidence o

Plaintiff Lal Dev petitioned to invalidate a power of attorney his younger brother and wife had obtained over his father. When the notary who had notarized the power of attorney failed to appear for a deposition, Dev named the notary as a party.
Later, the brother and wife moved to strike portions of Dev’s petition. Approximately two weeks later the notary filed a joinder to that motion to strike and also requested that he be dismissed from the petition. The trial court granted the request, dismissing the petition against the notary with prejudice.
On appeal, Dev contends the trial court erred in dismissing the notary. He raises an array of procedural challenges to the notary’s filing. He also requests sanctions. We find no error in dismissing the notary and no grounds for sanctions. We therefore affirm.

Defendant Santos Luciano Jimenez pleaded no contest to possessing methamphetamine and admitted to a prior strike. The trial court imposed the low term of 16 months, doubled for the strike. On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s exercise of discretion in failing to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor. He argues the trial court and his trial counsel failed to understand his possession conviction was a “wobbler,”which could be sentenced as a misdemeanor. He further contends his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to ask the court to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. We conclude the challenge is forfeited on appeal, and the record cannot support a claim of ineffective assistance. We therefore affirm.

Cynthia Stern appeals from the judgment entered after trial on her petition for dissolution of her marriage to David A. Stern. Cynthia challenges the provisions of the judgment regarding the award of spousal support to her, the Epstein credits and Watts charges in favor of David and the division of community assets, as well as the court’s failure to award attorney fees. We affirm.

Defendant Ramin Yeganeh (Yeganeh) purports to appeal from an order approving a good faith settlement between the plaintiffs and his parents, defendants Farin Namdaran Yeganeh and Kaitkhosrow Yeganeh (collectively, settling defendants). Because an order approving a good faith settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is not an appealable order, we shall dismiss the appeal.

A jury found defendant and appellant Cameron Ansel Mitchell guilty of deliberate and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)),[1] torture (206), and first degree residential burglary of an inhabited dwelling (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). The jury also found true enhancements for personally using a dangerous or deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and personally inflicting great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). The trial court sentenced Mitchell to a total term of 19 years to life based on consecutive sentences for the attempted murder and burglary counts and the enhancements for the attempted murder count. The court stayed the sentence on the torture count and the enhancements for the burglary count.

Shary Said appeals from the judgment[1] in favor of the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) and Terry Belmont (collectively referred to as defendants). Despite identifying herself as a volunteer for the University of California, Irvine (UCI), Medical Center (Medical Center), she alleged numerous causes of action (COAs) based on assertions she was an employee. She also stated claims for breach of contract, defamation, and discrimination, among others. Many of the COAs were dismissed on demurrer, and the others were decided against Said on summary judgment.
Said challenges the rulings on the demurrers and summary judgment motions, as well as those on discovery issues, motions to continue the hearing on the motions for summary judgment, and ex parte applications. Having considered all of the issues raised by Said in her opening brief, we conclude no error occurred and affirm the judgment. We decline to address any contentions made for the fi

Enrique M. (father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his eight-year-old son Enrique Joseph V.-M. (Joseph) and four-year-old daughter D.V. (collectively the children), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Father contends his due process rights were violated because the order was issued in the absence of a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to a contested section 366.26 hearing. Specifically, father complains the juvenile court did not advise him of the consequences of submitting on the recommendations of the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) without a contested hearing. We find no merit to father’s contention and affirm the order.

Ralph Lee Robinson entered into a plea agreement in which he pled no contest to cultivating marijuana. Appellate counsel was unable to identify any arguable issues in the case. We affirm the judgment.