CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Michelle Castor appeals after pleading guilty and no contest to financial elder abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (e)[1]), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)). She was sentenced to a three-year jail term pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h).
On appeal, defendant claims that she is entitled to additional presentence conduct credit pursuant to section 4019, and that the trial court improperly limited the rate at which she could earn postsentence conduct credit. We agree that the orders concerning defendant’s presentence and postsentence conduct credits require modification.

M.S. (mother) appeals from the court’s orders denying her petition for modification (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388; all further statutory references are to this code) and terminating her parental rights to her now almost five-year-old son, T.A. (the child). She contends the court abused its discretion in summarily denying the petition without a hearing and finding the benefit exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) inapplicable. Finding no error, we affirm.

An information charged Jose Francisco Rodriguez with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c))[1] and second degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b)), and alleged he had six strike priors consistent with the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A) & 1170.12 subds. (b), (c)(2)(A)), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and had served one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court dismissed five of the six strike priors before trial. (§ 1385.) A jury found Rodriguez guilty of both charged offenses, and Rodriguez admitted the truth of the prior conviction allegations. The trial court dismissed the remaining strike prior conviction (§ 1385) at sentencing and imposed a total term of 12 years, consisting of the two-year low term for the robbery (§ 213, subd. (a)(2)), plus five years for each prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).

S.E. (mother) and A.C. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s orders failing to find that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption is applicable to their case and terminating the parental rights of both parents to D.M., I.C., K.C., J.C. and S.C., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] We reject parents’ contentions and affirm the juvenile court’s orders.[2]

On September 20, 2011, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant Tony Chu with attempted murder (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) with personal use of a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) (Count 1), and mayhem (§ 203) by behavior that “split the ear of … a human being” (Count 2). On September 18, 2011, defendant pled not guilty to both counts and denied the enhancement allegation. On September 28, 2011, defendant pled not guilty by reason of insanity, and the trial court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed two psychologists to evaluate him. In his report, one of the psychologists, Robert Taylor, included a summary of the incident as reported to a Fresno police officer: the victim told Officer Ressler that the defendant approached the victim’s work station, produced a butcher knife, and placed it to the victim’s throat. The victim ran outside. Defendant chased him. Defendant “then … bit the ear of the victim, causing the injury ….”
On December 19, 2011, the trial court received, considered, “incorporate[d] into the file and [made] part of the record,” the reports of both psychologists. The trial court found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. Defendant then withdrew his not guilty plea, pled guilty to count one with the enhancement, and pled guilty to count two.

On September 13, 2011, a Stanislaus County jury found appellant Ivan Alejandro Zamora Blanco guilty in count 1 of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 187, 664), in count 2 of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), in count 5 of the lesser included offense of discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle (§ 12034, subd. (d)), and in count 6 of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)). The jury found that appellant personally used a firearm during the commission of counts 1, 2 and 6 (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during the commission of count 1 (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)).
On November 4, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to state prison for a term of life with the possibility of parole on count 1, plus 20 years for the related section 12022.53, subdivision (c) enhancement. As to count 6, the court sentenced appellant to five years in state prison plus four years for the related section 12022.5 enhancement. The court stayed the sentence imposed on count 2 and sentenced appellant to two years in state prison in count 5, the term to be served concurrently with the term imposed on count 6.
On January 3, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal.

This case arises out of an early morning collision between a Greyhound bus and a disabled Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) on State Route 99 (SR 99). The SUV had been involved in a one vehicle accident approximately three minutes earlier and had come to rest on its side blocking at least one lane. The bus collision resulted in the deaths of three bus passengers and the three occupants of the SUV.
In the aftermath of this collision, appellant, Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound), was sued for damages based on its alleged negligence. In response, Greyhound cross-complained against various cross-defendants including respondent, California Highway Patrol (CHP). Greyhound alleged that CHP was negligent in that, upon being alerted to the first accident by passing motorists, the CHP 911 operator failed to enter the code for lane blockage and thus the CHP response was unnecessarily delayed.
The trial court sustained CHP’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed Greyhound’s cross-complaint as against CHP. Greyhound argues the trial court erred because CHP owed a duty of care to the bus passengers based on the 911 operator’s assurances to the 911 callers that CHP was on the way. According to Greyhound, the CHP operator lulled the callers into a false sense of security and dissuaded them from rendering further assistance.
The trial court’s ruling was correct. Law enforcement personnel, including CHP officers, have no duty to come to the aid of another unless a special relationship exists between the injured party and the officers. Such a special relationship arises if an officer’s affirmative act creates the peril, or contributes to, increases, or changes the risk that otherwise exists. Here, no special relationship existed between CHP and the injured bus passengers. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.

On August 3, 2011, a Fresno County jury found appellant Anthony Ray Packard guilty in count 1 of unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and in count 2 of receipt of a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). After rendition of the verdict, appellant admitted two prior prison term allegations (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).[1]
On August 31, 2011, the court denied appellant probation and sentenced him to a total term of four years in state prison. The court imposed the middle term of two years for unlawful taking of a vehicle (count 1) and two consecutive one-year enhancements for the prior prison terms.
On September 1, 2011, appellant filed a notice of appeal.

In this appeal, Stanley Flake, individually and as trustee of Capstone Trust, challenges the posttrial order awarding $750,000 in attorney fees against all plaintiffs, jointly and severally, to defendants Andrew Katakis, his company California Equity Management Group, Inc. (CEMG), and the Fox Hollow of Turlock Owners Association (FHOA). Flake contends the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees against him because: (1) he did not bring an action to enforce the governing documents within the meaning of Civil Code section 1354, nor did he bring an action on a contract within the meaning of section 1717; and (2) defendants did not prevail because substantial evidence did not support the unclean hands findings as to him and the trust. Alternatively, (3) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing fees jointly and severally, so the matter must be remanded for the trial court to apportion the attorney fee award among the plaintiffs. We disagree and affirm the order.
FACTual and PROCEDURAL summary
The factual and procedural summary relevant to the underlying lawsuit is set forth in Sinclair v. Katakis, F058822 and is not repeated here. The factual and procedural summary relevant to this appeal is as follows.

In this appeal, appellants challenge posttrial orders awarding respondents $750,000 in attorney fees and denying their motion for reconsideration. Appellants are Richard C. Sinclair, who serves as counsel for these appellants; Sinclair’s company, Lairtrust, LLC; Sinclair’s son, Brandon Sinclair (Brandon); Brandon’s company, Capstone, LLC; and Gregory Mauchley.[1] Respondents are Andrew Katakis, his company California Equity Management Group (CEMG), and the Fox Hollow of Turlock Owners Association (FHOA).
Appellants raise three issues and make a number of claims in relation to the issues. They contend: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to continue a hearing on posttrial motions in light of Sinclair’s disability; (2) the trial court should have reconsidered the rulings because respondents’ counsel had a disqualifying conflict of interest; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in awarding respondents attorney fees. We will affirm.

This case includes three appeals from the judgment and the postjudgment orders following litigation over the ownership of eight lots in the Fox Hollow subdivision in Turlock, California.
The plaintiffs are Richard C. Sinclair, who serves as counsel for some of the plaintiffs on appeal; his company Lairtrust, LLC;[1] Sinclair’s son, Brandon Sinclair (Brandon); Brandon’s company, Capstone, LLC; Stanley Flake, as an individual and as trustee of Capstone Trust; and Gregory Mauchley (collectively, plaintiffs).[2] Each plaintiff has had an ownership interest in the Fox Hollow property.

Defendant and appellant N.W. appeals from the juvenile court’s judgment of August 21, 2012, declaring her a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.[1]
On March 16, 2012, at about 9:00 p.m., a sheriff’s deputy was doing an “area check” through the Michigan Apartments in Palm Desert. A maintenance worker gained the deputy’s attention and told him there was a female named N.W. that was on the property and that she was not allowed to be there. The worker provided a physical description of N.W. and asked the deputy to escort her off the property if he found her. A minute or two later the deputy saw N.W., then age 13, standing on a strip of grass belonging to the Michigan Apartments, about five feet off the sidewalk along Michigan Street near its intersection with Idaho.

Defendant Jeffrey Fitzgerald Jackson is serving a five-year prison term after pleading guilty in two separate cases to second-degree robbery and assault on a police officer.
Case No. FVA1101493 (The Robbery Case)
On September 19, 2011, defendant took a $100 bill from on top of a cash register at a gas station. After a confrontation and struggle with the clerk, defendant ran out of the store. The clerk followed defendant outside to get his license plate number. Defendant punched the clerk in the head before driving away.

In this case, we issued an order to show cause to consider the legality of a search that resulted in the seizure of a baggie of marijuana from the person of defendant and petitioner Dana Carter (defendant). We conclude that the seizure was illegal and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence from the seizure. Accordingly, we will grant defendant’s petition for writ of mandate.[1]