CA Unpub Decisions

Mother Irene P. appeals the dependency court's order terminating her parental rights to her two children Gilbert and Gabriel. She argues the dependency court erred in finding the benefits exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply.

This action arises under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 et seq. The mother, B.C., appeals from a June 14, 2010 disposition order as to her minor son (the child). Court affirm the order.

Appellant A.H. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights over her children Orlando (born July 2008) and Arturo (born June 2009). Mother contends the order must be reversed because the parental exception to terminating parental rights set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) applies.[1] Mother further contends the juvenile court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard when it determined the exception did not apply.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that the parental exception to terminating parental rights did not apply, and the juvenile court did not commit reversible error by applying an incorrect legal standard. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Donna C. appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her twin sons, Kendrick and K. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] Appellant's contention on appeal is that there was no substantial evidence for the finding that the children were adoptable. (In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154 [substantial evidence standard of review].) Finding such evidence, Court affirm.

On June 26, 2009, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that Jeffrey J. committed the misdemeanor of vandalism in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a). A second petition was filed on April 13, 2010, alleging that appellant committed the crime of second degree robbery, a felony, in violation of Penal Code section 211. Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found the robbery allegations of the April 13, 2010 petition true, sustained the petition, and declared the offense to be a felony. The June 26, 2009 petition was dismissed pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. The court placed appellant in the care, custody and control of the probation officer and ordered suitable placement, with a maximum confinement period of five years, and gave appellant 27 days of predisposition credit. Court affirm.

Edgar P. (father) challenges jurisdictional and dispositional orders removing his daughter and stepson from his custody and finding that they were dependents of the juvenile court. He argues that evidence he sexually abused his 14-year-old stepdaughter (Melinda) was insufficient to support jurisdiction over either his 12-year-old stepson (Jessie) or his daughter (E.P.), who was under two. Finding substantial evidence supports the court's orders, Court affirm.

Cathy A. Latou appeals a judgment of conviction entered after she pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft by embezzlement, and forgery (20 counts). Latou also admitted that the theft exceeded $200,000, and that the criminal offenses involved a pattern of related felony conduct. (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (a), 470, subd. (d), 12022.6, subd. (a)(2), 186.11, subd. (a)(1), (2).) Court conclude that the trial court did not err in sentencing and affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Wachovia Mortgage, FSB fka World Savings Bank, FSB (Wachovia) appeals from an order denying Wachovia a default judgment and dismissing its complaint seeking a declaration that its lien on certain real property is senior to that of defendant Anyway Bail Bonds, Inc. (Anyway) and asserting other claims. Court reverse and remand for further proceedings in the trial court.

Defendants and appellants Phil McGraw (McGraw), CBS Television Distributions (incorrectly sued as â€

In 1987 a jury convicted Roderick Mathewson of second degree murder with the personal use of a firearm and the trial court sentenced him to prison for 17 years to life. Mathewson, now 41 years old, has remained in prison for the past 21 years and for the last 12 years has been an exemplary inmate. He became eligible for parole in 1998. After three unsuccessful parole hearings, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) again found him unsuitable for parole at his 2008 suitability hearing. After the trial court denied a request for habeas relief, Mathewson filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mathewson essentially asserts the Board's conclusion violates his due process to parole because it is without evidentiary support; it was improperly based primarily upon the circumstances of his commitment offense and there is no evidence he poses a current risk of danger to public safety. In an opinion filed February 23, 2010, we concluded the record does not contain "some evidence" to support the Board's ultimate conclusion that Mathewson was unsuitable for parole because he currently posed an unreasonable risk to public safety. Accordingly, Court granted Mathewson habeas relief.

Defendants Sadiq Saibu and Antonio Valentino appeal from their convictions and sentences after a jury trial. Saibu and Valentino were convicted for their roles in committing a robbery of a video store, two attempted robberies of a liquor store, and a murder in the same liquor store during one of the attempted robberies.
On appeal, Saibu and Valentino jointly argue that the trial court erred in (1) admitting evidence concerning a bank robbery for which both men were previously convicted; (2) admitting digitally enhanced photographs created from surveillance video of the liquor store, as well as expert testimony regarding the enhancement process; and (3) admitting a videotape of an interview of Saibu's cousin conducted by police detectives. Saibu also contends that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 703 with respect to the felony-murder special circumstance allegation, and that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempted murder. Valentino contends that his abstract of judgment contains a number of errors, and that these errors must be corrected. Finally, both defendants assert that their convictions must be reversed due to the collective prejudice from the court's cumulative errors.

The California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) (Civ. Code,[1] § 3439 et seq.) provides that a creditor may recover property that a debtor has fraudulently transferred in order to avoid a debt. In this case, William Revelle, a judgment creditor, claimed that plaintiff and judgment debtor, John L. Gregg as trustee under the Will of J. Lee Gregg (The Trust), engaged in a fraudulent scheme to transfer the Trust's interest in certain settlement proceeds to another plaintiff in this action, DM Partners (DM).[2] The trial court determined that Revelle was entitled to settlement proceeds in the amount of $472,500 in partial satisfaction of his judgment. On appeal, DM claims that the trial court erred in awarding the settlement proceeds to Revelle. Court affirm the trial court's order.

L.H., mother of the minor, appeals from orders terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395 (undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code).) Appellant argues new counsel should have been appointed for the minor because the divergent permanent plans for the minor and the minor's sibling created an actual conflict of interest; the juvenile court erred in terminating parental rights because the evidence showed termination would substantially interfere with the sibling relationship; and the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). We shall affirm.

Thomas C., father of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)[1] Father contends the notices to the tribes pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (the ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) were inadequate. The county concedes error and requests remand to the juvenile court for further proceedings on the ICWA notice compliance. Court accept the concession, in part, and shall reverse.