CA Unpub Decisions

After the juvenile court denied minor Tomas M.’s motion to suppress evidence under Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1, minor admitted that he had committed the crime of possession of a firearm by a minor, a felony (Pen. Code, § 29610). The juvenile court sustained the petition alleging this offense and declared minor a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The juvenile court ordered minor to undergo a midterm camp program and listed minor’s terms and conditions of probation, which included tattoo removal. The juvenile court set the maximum period of confinement at three years and granted minor predisposition credit of 33 days.[1]
Minor appeals on the grounds that: (1) the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence; and (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion in imposing a probation condition requiring minor to remove his tattoos.

Roland Kosser appeals from the judgment entered against him and in favor of respondents Joseph De Carlo and Nancy Kanter, on respondents' complaint. We affirm the judgment, except that we find appellant's contentions concerning the award of attorney fees meritorious, and reverse that award.

Defendant and appellant, Jose Ricardo Felix, appeals his conviction for residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).[1] He was sentenced to state prison for six years.
The judgment is affirmed.

Appellants filed a lawsuit against their former employer and a supervisor, respondents to this appeal. The employer and the supervisor brought separate cross-complaints alleging that appellants breached the terms of general release agreements in which appellants had agreed to fully settle and release all claims against respondents. Appellants sought to strike respondents’ cross-complaints as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)[1]
We determine that the trial court improperly denied appellants’ special motion to strike with respect to the former employer because the employer failed to submit evidence showing that it had a reasonable probability of prevailing on its cross-complaint. We dismiss this appeal with respect to the former supervisor because appellants’ motion sought to strike a nonoperative cross-complaint.

Plaintiff, Jin Gang Zhao, appeals from the July 15, 2011 judgment confirming an arbitration award. The arbitrator awarded plaintiff $15,000 in damages against defendant, Ming Du International Trade, Inc. doing business as Champ America Travel and Tour. Dissatisfied with the arbitration award, plaintiff argues: it was error to confirm the arbitration award because the stipulation for binding arbitration was void; the stipulation is invalid because defendant never signed the stipulation document; and defendant’s insurer never gave him any consideration when he signed the stipulation. In addition, plaintiff contends the arbitration award must be vacated. The basis of the argument for vacating the award is the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his power when he denied a motion for an uncontested arbitration. We disagree and affirm the judgment confirming the arbitration award.

Defendant and appellant Jesse V. Hendricks appeals his conviction for second degree murder. The trial court sentenced Hendricks to a term of 36 years to life in prison. Hendricks contends the court erred by failing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter and by excluding evidence. We affirm.

Defendants and appellants Daniel Mendez and Carlos Garcia appeal their convictions for murder and attempted murder. Mendez and Garcia were sentenced to prison terms of 90 and 80 years to life, respectively.
Both appellants contend the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication; the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct; and the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it failed to stay or strike a minimum parole eligibility period. Mendez further contends the trial court improperly excluded evidence. Garcia further contends evidence of jailhouse conversations between him and Mendez should have been excluded, and the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for post-trial discovery, a continuance, and his motion for a new trial. The People concede that the trial court erred by imposing minimum parole eligibility periods. We modify the judgment to correct the sentencing error. In all other respects, we affirm.

After defendant Timothy Lewis’s first trial ended in a deadlocked jury, a second jury convicted him of carjacking in violation of Penal Code section 215, subdivision (a).[1] Defendant admitted a prior serious felony conviction pursuant to sections 1170, subdivisions (a) through (d); 667, subdivisions (b) through (i); and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). He also admitted having served a prior prison term pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Dannell Lee Richard, Jovan Ricky Guillory, Ashlee Olivia Reed and Aisha Najean Douglas appeal from the judgments entered following their convictions on charges arising from the home invasion robbery of a drug dealer and his girlfriend. With the exception of some corrections to Richard’s sentence, we affirm.

K.B. (Mother) and D.N. (Father) seek extraordinary relief from orders of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, entered November 1, 2012, which terminated their reunification services after a 12-month permanency hearing (see § 366.21, subd. (f)),[1] and which set a hearing under section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for their daughter A.N. (born Aug. 2009). Mother and Father both contend the juvenile court erred in finding that the return of the minor to their care would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. (See § 366.21, subd. (f).) Father also suggests the court abused its discretion by failing to continue services under a family maintenance plan, given his substantial progress with his case plan. (See § 366.21, subd. (f).) We conclude substantial evidence supports the challenged finding, and find no abuse of discretion in the court’s failure to continue services, whether under a plan of reunification or family maintenance. Accordingly we deny on the merits Mother’s and Father’s writ petitions.[2]

Plaintiff and respondent Gabriel Natalini (respondent), a car buyer, filed this action alleging individual and class claims against defendant and appellant Import Motors, Inc. (appellant), a car dealer. Appellant filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in the car sales contract, but the trial court denied the petition because it concluded the arbitration provision was unconscionable. We affirm.

Plaintiff Yvonne Andrade brought an action against defendant City of Milpitas (City) for failure to accommodate her disability. Andrade appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment. We find no error and affirm.

Mother appeals from juvenile court orders denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,[1] and terminating parental rights. Mother contends she demonstrated her circumstances had changed and granting her petition was in the best interests of her daughter, T.V. (born in July 2009). We conclude the juvenile court reasonably found mother had not sufficiently changed her circumstances and granting mother’s petition was not in T.V.’s best interests. Because there was no abuse of discretion in denying mother’s petition, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant and appellant Raymond Rudy Perez has filed a notice of appeal after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to a series of charges arising out of three separate criminal proceedings against him. We affirm.