CA Unpub Decisions

Sun Min Lee (Lee) appeals from an order denying her request for a domestic violence restraining order against her husband, respondent Gu Hyun Kim (Kim). (Fam. Code, § 6300.) Lee contends there was reasonable proof of past abuse sufficient for issuance of the order, and the court denied her request on improper grounds. Court affirm the order.

Defendant E.M., 17 years old, appeals from a dispositional order placing him on probation after he admitted committing a felony theft offense. He contests a condition of probation that prohibits him from being â€

Brian Carter, individually and doing business as Discovery Judgment Recovery (collectively, DJR), appeals from an order denying DJR's motion to intervene in an interpleader action. DJR contends it was entitled to intervene after dismissal of the case, because the dismissal and underlying settlement were obtained without the consent required by Code of Civil Procedure section 708.440. Court agree and reverse the order.

United Educators of San Francisco, AFT Local 61, AFL-CIO, NEA/CTA (UESF), exclusive representative of certificated employees of the San Francisco Unified School District (District), petitioned the superior court for a writ of ordinary mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) on behalf of members who work as so-called site support staff/substitutes (site support substitutes) or core substitutes. UESF contended that those members were improperly deemed temporary employees by the District, contrary to the Education Code.[1] This appeal by UESF is from a December 19, 2008 judgment issued after the court sustained, without leave to amend, a demurrer by the District on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (a) & (e)). Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Defendant George Galloway appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree robbery. Defendant contends his sentence of 40 years to life, which was imposed under the â€

A jury convicted Wendell T. Nelson (appellant) of first degree residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459.[1] Appellant suffered two prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), which prohibited a grant of probation. The trial court sentenced appellant to the upper term of six years in state prison.
Appellant appeals on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support his burglary conviction.

Maywood Club Tow (MCT) appeals from the judgment of dismissal of its Second Amended Complaint against the City of Maywood (the City) entered after the trial court sustained the city's demurrer. MCT contends it was error to sustain the demurrer and to award attorney fees to the city. Court affirm.

This is a consolidated appeal from a criminal conviction of corporal injury to a child's parent and from a probation revocation hearing for an underlying conviction of criminal threats. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appellant's counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. After counsel filed a Wende brief, appellant filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record and appellant's supplemental brief, and find no arguable issue. Court affirm.

Viola Reynaga appeals from the trial court's July 22, 2009 order terminating spousal support and ordering reimbursement of $77,000 in support that was paid to her since January 1, 2007, the date the court found she began residing with an unrelated adult male. In the event we reverse, respondent Gerardo Reynaga cross-appeals asking that we reverse the entire order including his waiver of reimbursement. Court dismiss the cross appeal as moot and affirm the judgment.

There is a strong policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits. (Metropolitan Service Corp. v. Casa de Palms, Ltd. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) Generally, â€

James Nelson appeals his conviction of one count of corporal injury on a cohabitant or parent of his child in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a).[1] He claims the court effectively directed a verdict against him in its answer to a question from the jury, that there was insufficient evidence of proximate causation, and that the jury's attention was diverted from this failure of proof because the court omitted the proximate causation portions of the corporal injury instructions. Finally, he claims the court failed to give complete Boykin-Tahl[2] advisements before accepting his prior strike admission. Court find no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment.

In a prior appeal in this matter, L.S. (Mother) and A.S. (Father) challenged an order of the juvenile court, made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,[1] terminating their parental rights and freeing their daughter, Z.S., for adoption. (In re Z.S. (Sept. 24, 2009, A124064) [nonpub. opn.].) We rejected substantive challenges to the order, but reversed and remanded the matter to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with notice and inquiry provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). After remand, the juvenile court determined ICWA did not apply and reinstated the order terminating parental rights. Father appeals this order, contending the juvenile court again failed to comply with ICWA. Father also requests visitation with Z. in the event we reverse on ICWA grounds. Court affirm.

Orlando R. appeals from orders continuing his wardship and ordering him to serve six years of therapeutic detention. He contends the trial court erred in its calculation of his maximum term of confinement and number of predisposition credits to which he was entitled. We conclude the matter must be remanded for correction of the maximum term of confinement and length of appellant's therapeutic detention, and recalculation of appellant's predisposition credits. In other respects, the orders are affirmed.