CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Corey David Wake appeals from an eight-year state prison sentence he received (subject to local custody credits)[1] after the court found him to be in violation of probation in Case No. MCWLCRCR0353717 (hereafter Case No. 0353717) and probation was terminated, and appellant pleaded guilty to two counts in Case No. MCWLCRCR0672255 (hereafter Case No. 0672255). Appellant's counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel submitted a declaration stating that he notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Counsel also advised appellant of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court's attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.

J.M., mother of minor children K.M. and B.A., and C.A., the alleged father of B.A., appeal from the juvenile court's orders terminating their parental rights and setting adoption as the permanent plan for the children. Appellants argue the orders must be reversed because there was not clear and convincing evidence that the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time and the assessment report by the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) was insufficient. C.A. also argues for reversal of the order regarding B.A. because the court erroneously failed to rule on his request for a judgment of parentage and denied him the opportunity to cross-examine a testifying social worker regarding the children's adoptability, and requests certain orders should we reverse and remand. We affirm the orders.

Michael Parker sued his former employer RIX Industries, Inc. (RIX) and its counsel, David C. Bohrer, for malicious prosecution after they brought and ultimately dismissed an action against him for violating trade secrets. He claimed it was malicious prosecution to include causes of action under sections 499c and 502 of the Penal Code. Repeating positions from below that relief based on the criminal statutes was legally and factually untenable, Parker appeals following the grant of a special motion to dismiss brought by defendants under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), plus a dependent award of costs and fees (id., subd. (c)). We affirm the judgment.

The District Attorney of San Francisco appeals from an order granting the petition of Jordan Bogash determining his factual innocence of a crime which he was previously charged with committing. The criminal complaint against him was dismissed on the People's motion in the interest of justice. Although Bogash presented substantial evidence of his innocence, there nonetheless remains evidence sufficient to leave his guilt or innocence in reasonable doubt. Under the stringent standard governing such petitions, we are constrained to conclude that the petition should not have been granted and, therefore, shall reverse the order.

A law firm obtained a $2.4 million judgment against one of its former partners, defendant Shahab E. Fotouhi, and, in an effort to collect the judgment, sought court orders: (1) charging Fotouhi's interest in his new law firm, Fotouhi, Epps, Hillger & Gilroy, LLP (the Partnership) (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.310; Corp. Code, § 16504, subd. (a)); (2) extending the order charging his partnership interest to a corporation it contends is a â€

After his arrest in March 2009 for felony possession of cocaine, appellant pled no contest and was granted 3 years probation, with three months to be served in county jail. He appeals, claiming the arresting officer unlawfully entered the yard of his residence to detain him and that, accordingly, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We reject appellant's argument and hence affirm his conviction.

Plaintiff Kevin Halpern appeals from an adverse judgment entered after the court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer to his first amended complaint against defendants Anu Shukla and Mitch Liu. The amended complaint alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, to which four- and three-year limitation periods apply, but the trial court, purporting to apply the â€

Appellant Sean McCullough seeks reversal of the trial court's order denying his petition for a writ of administrative mandate concerning Cabrillo Community College District's (District) decision to terminate his employment. On appeal, McCullough contends that the trial court erred (1) because it did not direct the District to permit him to participate in the choice of the evaluating psychiatrist, and (2) because it did not address his contention that the District violated its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with his union by allowing someone other than the district superintendent to select the evaluating psychiatrist. McCullough asserts that these breaches of the CBA nullified the District's decision to terminate him. He also contends the trial court erred when it concluded that he failed to engage in the interactive process to accommodate his disability. We find no error and will affirm the judgment.

Appellant Jesus Torres seeks review of an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement between him and respondent Ali Jahanfard. Torres contends that the agreement was ineffective because Jahanfard had not signed it and because no meeting of the minds had ever occurred in the succession of settlement offers and counteroffers. We will affirm the judgment.

Petitioners Brian Wilson, Michelle Wilson, Rick Kurland, Mary Kurland, Carole Barton, Kevin O'Neal, Veronica O'Neal, Jon Nunes, Kelly Nunes, Vincent Bond, Jeanne Bond, Ernesto Esplana, and Marlyn Esplana (collectively, petitioners) obtained a judgment against Donovan Westerfeld, Debbie Westerfeld, and Homeowners Construction Defect Group, LLC (collectively, Defect Group), for negligence. That's when the case became the legal equivalent of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. The judgment failed to award petitioners statutory damages and attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1029.8. Although the trial court initially stated it would amend the judgment to make provision for such damages and attorney fees, the court later refused to rule on a motion to set aside the judgment or a motion for an award of attorney fees, because the court believed it did not have jurisdiction over the case, due to a pending appeal. The appeal, however, had been filed by another set of defendants, John A. Gladych and Gladych & Associates, Inc. (collectively, Gladych), and the trial court retained jurisdiction over the severable portion of the judgment involving Defect Group.

A jury convicted defendant Miguel Angel Moreno of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); all statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted). Moreno contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to declare his offense to be a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b). For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Edgart F. Gonzalez appeals from a judgment entered after the court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiff asserts the court wrongly found his quiet title and related claims were barred by res judicata. We disagree. The court correctly found his claims were barred by the prior order of a federal bankruptcy court, even though that order was being appealed. The order was final for res judicata purposes when it was issued -- that is the black-letter federal rule, which California courts apply when basing res judicata on a federal order. Accordingly, we affirm.

Defendant Jose Avila Zaragoza molested his two granddaughters from 1998 until 2002. He was convicted of six counts of committing forcible lewd acts against both of the girls and of the special allegation that he committed lewd acts against multiple victims.
Defendant makes three claims on appeal:
1. He should have been prosecuted under Penal Code section 288.5, rather than five separate counts of violating section 288, subdivision (b)(1).
2. Evidence Code section 1108 is unconstitutional, and it was error to instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 2.50.01.
3. Instruction to the jury that it need not find motive as an element of the crimes reduced the People's burden of proof on the charged crimes to less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
We affirm the judgment.

Maria G. (mother) appeals, contending a juvenile court order limiting her unsupervised visitation with her children, J.G. and B.G. (together, children) was an abuse of the court's discretion. Mother also argues there was not sufficient evidence to support the court's finding reasonable reunification services were provided to her by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency). We dismiss the appeal as moot.