CA Unpub Decisions

A Modification decision.

This case arises from a fight between mother, Sasha A. and father, Kevin T., during which mother attacked father with a knife and their one-year old son, J.A., was injured. Father appeals the jurisdictional findings under Welfare & Institutions Code[1] section 300, subdivision (a) and the dispositional orders removing J.A. and his infant sister, T.A., from parental custody. He contends the evidence does not support a jurisdictional finding as against him, because he did not inflict harm on J.A. He further contends the evidence does not support the children being removed from his custody, because his “turbulent history with mother” “never created any risk to the children.” We disagree and affirm.

Appellant Sandi Schaffer was working as a contract dental hygienist at respondent Roseville Care Center (Roseville) when she filed a whistleblower report against a dentist who allegedly ignored a large tumor in the mouth of one of the residents. Shortly thereafter, Roseville and respondent Colonial Healthcare (Colonial) terminated her services at their skilled nursing facilities. Both facilities are operated by respondent Horizon West Healthcare, Inc. (Horizon).

A jury found defendant Joshua David Coombs guilty of felony sale of marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a).) Defendant appeals, contending he received constitutionally ineffective counsel due to counsel’s failure to properly object to the admission of evidence of his prior marijuana sales. He also requests this court independently review sealed materials reviewed in camera by the trial court. We have reviewed the material and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Martin Ray Coons appeals from orders of the Siskiyou County Superior Court (trial court) entered January 13, 2010, finding him in violation of two conditions of his probation, and, on March 2, 2010, ordering him to serve 90 days in county jail after which probation was to be terminated as unsuccessful. Defendant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the two alleged probation violations and imposing additional jail time because the violations were not willful. We disagree and shall affirm the trial court’s orders.

Jeannie Ramsay Bacich sued the beneficiaries of the estate of Dorothy Desmond -- Michael Campanella, Leslie Campanella, Tosh Campanella, Forrest Campanella, Jeanette Mae Mendias, Frances “Jenny” Navarro, Joellyn E. Knight, and Elaine Fambrini (Beneficiaries) -- to enforce Dorothy’s promise to leave her estate to Jeannie.[1] Beneficiaries appeal from a judgment following a bench trial.
Beneficiaries contend (1) there is no substantial evidence that Jeannie would suffer unconscionable injury if she did not receive Dorothy’s estate, or that Dorothy’s estate would be unjustly enriched if Jeannie did not receive Dorothy’s estate; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing Beneficiaries to recover defense costs from the trust estate.

Appellant Vimal Singh, Acting Warden of the California Medical Facility, appeals from the Los Angeles County Superior Court's November 11, 2011 order granting life prisoner Mark Ouellette's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The order reverses the decision of the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole to Mr. Ouellette.
Appellant contends that the superior court erred in reversing the Parole Board's decision because some evidence supports the Board's decision to deny parole to Mr. Ouellette. We affirm the superior court's order.

Petitioners and defendants Yum Matsuba, Owner Management Service, LLC, and Trust Holding Service Co. (petitioners) seek mandate to vacate respondent court's order of December 9, 2011, granting real party and plaintiff Amir Zipori's motion objecting to the sufficiency of undertaking for appeal by personal sureties, and requiring petitioners to file an undertaking by an admitted surety insurer in an amount equal to twice the judgment of $59,368.72, or $118,737.44. Petitioners contend that under Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 995.010 et seq., the subject undertaking of the personal sureties submitted below was sufficient, and that respondent court's requirement that they file an undertaking by an admitted surety in the amount of twice the judgment is contrary to and in excess of the amount required by section 917.1, subdivision (b).
We hold that respondent court's determination that the undertaking by the personal sureties was not sufficient under sections 995.510, 995.930 and 995.960, and requirement that an undertaking be provided by an admitted surety insurer, was not contrary to law or an abuse of discretion. However, that part of the court's order requiring an undertaking by an admitted surety insurer in the amount of twice the judgment was in excess of the amount of one and one-half times the judgment required by section 917.1,
subdivision (b). Accordingly, we issue mandate requiring respondent court to modify its order to require petitioners to file a bond in the amount of one and one-half times the judgment of $59,368.72, or $89,053.08, and to vacate that part of the order requiring an undertaking of twice the judgment.

Gilbert A. (Father) appeals the dependency court’s order terminating his parental rights. Since we find that substantial evidence supported the dependency court’s finding that the “beneficial relationship exception” to termination of parental rights did not apply, we affirm.

K.A. (mother) appeals dependency orders entered with respect to her three children. We reject mother’s claim there was insufficient evidence to support the assertion of dependency jurisdiction and affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

Brent G. appeals from the juvenile court’s order finding him the presumed father of Blake G., contending Family Code section 7540’s presumption of paternity is inapplicable because he is sterile and there was insufficient evidence he was married to Blake’s mother at the time of Blake’s birth. We affirm.

Kevin A. (Father) challenges a juvenile court order sustaining allegations that he failed to supervise or protect his one-year-old daughter Ashely M. by not providing her with the necessities of life and not making an appropriate plan for her care and supervision. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)[1] The jurisdiction and disposition orders are supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Noel O. appeals from the juvenile court’s order declarating him a continuing ward of the court and directing that he remain home on probation. He contends the evidence is insufficient to support the finding he committed a burglary and, alternatively, the court failed to determine whether the offense was a misdemeanor or a felony. We affirm in part and remand for further proceedings.

The record contains no information regarding the underlying facts in this action. In June 1987, a two-count felony complaint was filed charging appellant Leonard Alfonso Brown with selling or transporting cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352) and with possessing it for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). The complaint and information also included weight allegations as restrictions on probation. (Pen. Code, § 1203.07, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).)[1] Brown pleaded guilty to the possession charge and was sentenced to a three-year term in state prison.
In August 2011, Brown (then in federal custody in Florida), filed a petition entitled “Petition for Nunc Pro Tunc,” asking the court to clarify and correct certain records pertaining to his conviction which he claimed were erroneous. These records (which are not included in our appellate record) purportedly referred to case numbers A781940 and A795097 which, according to Brown, involved not him, but an individual named Stefan Harris. The court denied the petition on the grounds that it was both untimely and failed to establish prejudice.