CA Unpub Decisions

The issue in this case is whether the juvenile court erred in denying a mother’s Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition without a hearing.[1] The petition asked the court to change a previous order so that mother could have sleepover visits from her children one weekend each month and participate in school and after-school activities. We find no abuse of discretion and so affirm the juvenile court’s order.

After sexually molesting his daughter in 2011, Francisco Dominguez Davila was charged by felony complaint with committing two counts of lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)),[1] and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288.5, subd (a)). He pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Represented by appointed counsel, Davila waived his right to a preliminary hearing and entered a negotiated plea of no contest to committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years on or between March 1 and March 31, 2011, as charged in count 1. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Davila to the lower state prison term of three years, and the remaining charges were dismissed on the People’s motion. The court ordered Davila to pay a $40 court security fee, a $30 criminal conviction assessment and a $200 restitution fine. The court imposed and suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. Davila was awarded a total of 146 days of presentence credit (127 actual days and 19 days of conduct credit).
Davila timely filed a notice of appeal in which he checked the box indicating, “This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”

Appellant Jose H. (Father) appeals from the juvenile dependency court’s jurisdictional order pertaining to minor S.H. Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)[1] and the dispositional findings and orders.
We are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders and affirm.

Ebony B. and Do.S. appeal from a jurisdictional order under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, in the dependency proceedings concerning their children, D.S., K.S., and Darion S.[2] We affirm.

A modification decision.

Defendant and appellant Bryan Abney pled no contest to one count of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5), and admitted that he had inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of that offense. (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (e).) He was sentenced to a total of seven years in state prison. This appeal followed.
We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On March 5, 2012, appellant's counsel advised appellant that he intended to file such a brief, advised appellant that he could submit a supplemental brief in his own behalf, and transmitted a copy of the record on appeal to him. In addition, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit by brief or letter any argument or contention he wished this court to consider. In response, on April 5, 2012, we received a letter from appellant setting forth various contentions.

Phillip L. Wright appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d))[1] and, in the sanity phase of trial, found that appellant was sane when he committed the offense victim (§ 1026). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that appellant had suffered two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (d) - (e); 1170.12, subds. (b) -(c)), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant was sentenced as a Three Striker to 36 years to life state prison. We affirm.

Natan Avraham appeals from the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment entered after the parties stipulated in open court to the resolution of his family law dissolution action. Finding no basis for relief has been stated, we affirm.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation appeals from the trial court’s judgment in this administrative mandate action, which reversed the California State Personnel Board’s decision to uphold the department’s termination of prison guard Gibran Chavez after finding that he tried to cover up another guard’s improper use of force on an inmate. Because there was substantial evidence to support the personnel board’s findings, we reverse the judgment and direct entry of a new judgment in favor of the corrections department.

Appellant, Mary Lou Pappas, appeals from a judgment entered upon the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent, Dr. Larry Slomowitz. Among her arguments, Pappas asserts that the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that her expert’s declaration was insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact regarding causation. As we explain more fully herein, Dr. Slomowitz did not meet his initial burden on summary judgment to demonstrate the nonexistence of a material fact concerning causation. Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Dr. Slomowitz shifted the burden to Pappas, Pappas effectively disputed this point. Thus, the trial court erred in granting judgment for Dr. Slomowitz as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse.

Appellant Wayne Andresson brought this personal injury action against Paramount Unified School District (the District). Andresson alleges that his injuries arose from a dangerous condition of public property at Paramount High School, where he worked as a security guard. The trial court sustained the District’s demurrer to his second amended complaint (SAC) without leave to amend. We affirm.

Defendants and appellants Sam Viera, Jose Rivas and Robert Gonzalez were convicted by jury of one count of assault with a deadly weapon arising from the March 12, 2009 assault on Christopher Nolasco in which defendants beat and stabbed Mr. Nolasco repeatedly. The jury also found true the great bodily injury allegation, and the allegation the assault had been committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. Defendant Viera was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 19 years, defendant Rivas was sentenced to 17 years, and defendant Gonzalez to 21 years.

Adjacent property owners dispute the existence of an easement for ingress and egress over appellants' property. Appellants assert that the easement was extinguished by adverse possession. After a bench trial, the court granted declaratory and injunctive relief and quieted title to the easement in favor of respondents and cross-complainants finding that appellants had not established that their use of the easement was hostile. Therefore, appellants did not acquire the easement by adverse possession. Appellants assert the trial court erred because the evidence establishes adverse possession. They also assert various procedural errors.

A jury entered a general verdict in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Isaac Michalov, Michael Grayson and Axis Entertainment, Inc. (sometimes collectively plaintiffs) and against defendant and appellant Syndicate Films International, LLC in the amount of $1 million. Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict and that a new trial should have been granted on the ground of juror misconduct.
We affirm. There was sufficient evidence to support the general verdict under more than one of the multiple theories of recovery on which the jury was instructed. Moreover, the juror declarations offered by plaintiffs were inadequate to show the jury rendered an improper quotient verdict.