CA Unpub Decisions

Charles Edward Greenwood appeals from an order entered pursuant to the Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) Act (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.),[1] extending his commitment to Napa State Hospital. Greenwood contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others if released. He also argues that the court failed to advise him of the right to a jury trial as required by the MDO Act and failed to obtain his personal waiver of the right, errors he claims warrant reversal.
We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding and, although the record does not show that the court gave the required advisement or that Greenwood expressly waived the right, the evidence is such that it is not reasonably probable that a jury would have reached a different result. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) Accordingly, we shall affirm.

Plaintiffs James M. Kelley, Miki W. Larsson, and Douglas B. Kelley appeal from a judgment dismissing their action against Rambus, Inc.; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), an outside auditor for Rambus; and Daniel Zwarn, a PwC partner. Plaintiffs contend that the superior court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrers to their complaint because they had viable claims for securities fraud. We agree with the superior court, however, that res judicata barred each of plaintiffs' causes of action, as their claims had already been adjudicated in a federal case that had been dismissed in a final judgment. We must therefore affirm the superior court's judgment of dismissal.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument in defendant’s own behalf, which he did. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant pleaded guilty to committing several robberies. The handwritten statement of facts offered to the court as the basis for his plea states: “In Orange County, California, on the following dates; 6-30-03, 11-2-03, 10-26-03, 11-8-03, 10-27-03, 7-7-03 & on 10 separate occasions I used force and fear to take money from [10 named individuals].”

The district attorney filed the first petition alleging Carlos A. (the minor) dissuaded a witness by force and threat in violation of Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (c)(1) and that he should be declared a ward of the juvenile court on July 11, 2011. The second petition against the minor, alleging possession of a controlled substance and paraphernalia in violation of Health and Safety Code section, 11364, was filed on August 4, 2011. The third petition, alleging the same crime as in the second petition, but on a different date, was also filed on August 4, 2011. The fourth petition, alleging second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code sections 211, 212.5 subdivision (c), was filed on October 11, 2011.
The minor admitted the allegations in the first three petitions on October 19, 2011. The handwritten facts offered as a basis for the admissions state: “On or about 5/22/11, in Orange County, I knowingly, maliciously & unlawfully prevented & dissuaded Jane Doe, a witness, from making a report to a peace officer by an implied threat of force & violence upon Jane Doe. And on 9/25/10 & 5/21/11, in Orange County, I possessed paraphernalia used for unlawfully smoking a controlled substance.”

Appeal from a judgment and postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David C. Velasquez, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Richard A. Harvey and Richard A. Harvey for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Appellant International Space Optics, S.A., and for Cross-Defendants and Appellants Robert Fox and Yoshiko Oswald.
Law Offices of Stephen M. McNamara and Stephen M. McNamara for Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Appellant Donald Hamasaki.
Alpert, Barr & Grant and Adam D.H. Grant for Defendants and Respondents Paul Hamasaki and Scott Hamasaki.
Law Office of Diane Goldman and Diane Goldman for Defendant and Respondent Joni Hamasaki.

Joe M., in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order issued in September 2012, at a six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)),[1] terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to his nine-month-old son, Joel. We deny the petition.

N.M. is the mother of eight-year-old A.M. and two-year-old Brian M.[1] In August 2012, at a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court denied N.M. reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6)[2] and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan of adoption. N.M. contends the juvenile court erred. We concur and grant the petition.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Ronnie Dale Hammontree pled guilty to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and admitted that he had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).[1] The trial court placed him on probation for three years on certain terms. Defendant subsequently admitted that he violated his probation, and the court revoked his probation. The court sentenced him to five years four months in state prison and awarded him 485 days of presentence credits (319 actual plus 166 conduct).
Defendant subsequently filed a motion with the trial court, in propria persona, to reduce his sentence (the motion). The court denied the motion. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and request for certificate of probable cause, indicating he wished to challenge the denial of the motion. The court denied the request for certificate of probable cause. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On or about March 23, 2012, defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, based upon the problem of overcrowding in California prisons, and his desire to take care of his mother. In his motion, defendant cited Penal Code section 1170, Title 18 United States Code section 3626, California Rules of Court, rule 4.452, and various cases. The trial court denied the motion.

Petitioner, the County of Riverside (Employer), filed this petition seeking a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950[1] of an order awarding workers’ compensation benefits to respondent Sandie Taylor (Applicant). We conclude that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) erred in finding either that Applicant was an “employee” covered by the workers’ compensation laws or that she was entitled to benefits as a member of the “posse comitatus.” Accordingly, we issued a writ of review and now annul the order.

Plaintiff and appellant William Morschauser filed an action against defendants and respondents Continental Capital, LLC (ConCap), Stephen J. Collias, and Thia Fuller (collectively referred to as respondents) for damages caused by their alleged negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations and other conduct in connection with the sale and foreclosure proceedings of real property (the Property) owned by the Devore Stop partnership and Morschauser. Morschauser, individually, and as a partner with Mohammad Abdizadeh, was a trustor of record on the underlying Deed of Trust, the beneficial interest of which had previously been assigned to ConCap. Morschauser alleged causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress against respondents.[1] Respondents moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they had made no representations to Morschauser and in good faith believed he had signed all relevant documents and/or that his partner, Abdizadeh, had the authority to bind the partnership. The trial court agreed, granted the motion, and entered judgment in favor of respondents. Morschauser appeals, contending there are triable issues of fact as to respondents’ conduct.

Plaintiff and appellant William Morschauser filed an action against defendant and respondent TD Service Company (TD), arising out of a nonjudicial foreclosure for which TD was retained as substituted trustee. Morschauser, individually, and as a partner with Mohammad Abdizadeh, was a trustor of record on the underlying Deed of Trust, the beneficial interest of which previously had been assigned to Continental Capital, LLC (ConCap). Morschauser alleged causes of action against TD for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. TD moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had complied with its statutory duties pursuant to Civil Code section 2924 et seq.[1] and the documentation supported the beneficiary’s position. The trial court agreed, granting the motion and entering judgment in favor of TD. Morschauser appeals, contending there are triable issues of fact as to TD’s conduct in the administration of its trustee duties.

PROCEEDINGS in mandate after the superior court vacated a restraining order and allowed visitation with father. William H. McAdams, Judge. Petition granted.

Tommy D. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] The sole issue on appeal is whether the matter must be remanded for compliance with notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act, title 25 United States Code sections 1901 et seq. and section 224 et seq. (ICWA). We affirm.

Joanne L. and Marco L. (together, the parents) appeal judgments declaring their minor children, Jeremiah L. and Josiah L. (together, the minors), dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (j)[1] and removing them from parental custody. The parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders. We affirm the judgments.