CA Unpub Decisions

Peter Joseph Hlinka appeals from an order dismissing his petition to compel the trustee of the Blanche L. Hlinka Living Trust (Trust) to provide him with an accounting and a report and distribute trust assets to him. The court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not properly served on the attorney for the trustee.
Court dismiss the appeal. The order from which the appeal is purportedly taken is not appealable.

In this suit for an injunctive order to prevent harassment (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6), defendant Richard Stockton (defendant) appeals from a three-year restraining order issued in favor of plaintiff Bruce Cardozo (plaintiff). The appeal proceeds on the clerk's transcript and the trial court's settled statement. Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to support the injunction. Defendant further contends that the settled statement is incorrect in its recitation of what occurred at trial, and that he is unable to challenge the settled statement because he does not have a reporter's transcript. court find defendant has not met his burden on appeal of showing reversible error. Therefore the restraining order will be affirmed.

Plaintiff and appellant Antranik Zartarian (Zartarian) purports to appeal an order denying his motion for reconsideration. Zartarian's motion sought reconsideration of an earlier order denying his petition to compel arbitration of his action against defendant and respondent Worldwide Environmental Products, Inc. (Worldwide).
No appeal lies from the order denying reconsideration of the earlier order. Therefore, the purported appeal must be dismissed.

Appellant J.N. appeals from the juvenile court's order declaring him a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placing him home on probation, following the juvenile court's sustaining of a petition alleging that he committed one count of lewd act on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed lewd conduct, because the evidence failed to prove that he acted with the required sexual intent. Court affirm.

Appellant Kito M. Sims was charged in an information filed on July 12, 2007, with making criminal threats, assault, vandalism and two prior felony convictions. On September 5, 2007, the trial court found appellant not mentally competent to stand trial and ordered him committed to Patton State Hospital for the administration of psychotropic medications. On March 21, 2008, the court found that appellant's mental competence had been restored and reinstated criminal proceedings.
A jury convicted appellant of making criminal threats and felony vandalism; the trial court dismissed the assault count. Appellant admitted two prior â€

A modification decision.

Ernesto Gracia appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 189, 187, subd. (a).)[1] The jury found true allegations that appellant had personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and that the murder had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) In addition, the jury found true a special circumstances allegation that appellant had intentionally killed the victim to further the activities of a criminal street gang while appellant was an active participant in the gang. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22).) Appellant admitted two prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole plus one year for the deadly weapon enhancement plus two years for the two prior prison terms.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the gang enhancement and special circumstances allegation. Appellant also contends that the trial court erroneously: (1) discharged a juror during jury deliberations; (2) admitted evidence of a felony assault committed by appellant while he was in jail awaiting trial on the murder charge; (3) permitted a gang expert to opine that the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang; (4) gave a special jury instruction on first degree murder; and (5) failed to answer the jury's question during deliberations. Court affirm.

An information charged defendant Dennis Curtis Hisle with multiple crimes arising out of his assaults upon two women: K.R. and S.H. The crimes involving the two victims were committed approximately six months apart.
The jury convicted defendant of forcibly raping S.H. in December 2004 (§ 261, subd. (a)(2))[1] and of committing in May 2005 the following five crimes upon K.R. whom he held captive for two days: (1) rape of an unconscious person (§ 261, subd. (a)(4)); (2) forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)); (3) forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)); (4) sexual penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)); and (5) false imprisonment by violence (§ 236). In regard to the forcible rape conviction of S.H., the jury found true the allegation that defendant had forcibly raped more than one victim. (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(5).) In regard to the forcible rape conviction of K.R., the jury found true the allegations that defendant tied or bound her in the commission of the offense (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(6)) and that he had forcibly raped more than one victim. (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(5).)

Defendant and appellant Billy J. Spencer appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree robbery and one count of receiving stolen property. Spencer was sentenced to a prison term of 20 years. He contends his plea was induced by a misrepresentation of a fundamental nature, and seeks conditional reversal of the judgment. The People concede the point. We agree, and conditionally reverse the judgment to allow Spencer to withdraw his plea. Concurrently with his appeal, we consider and deny Spencer's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner Michael C. (father) petitions this court for an extraordinary writ pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (l) and California Rules of Court, rules 8.452 and 8.456, seeking review of a juvenile court order setting this dependency matter for hearing to implement a permanent plan for his daughter, M.P. (minor). For reasons to follow, Court must dismiss father's petition on timeliness grounds.

Richard Floyd Gilliam, appearing in propria persona, appeals from a judgment dismissing his lawsuit following a successful demurrer by defendants Mathew Cate and Scott Kernan, in their capacities as director and deputy director of the California Department of Corrections. Plaintiff's complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants are violating Government Code section 11013 by operating the prison canteen at San Quentin State Prison for a profit. Court agree with the trial court that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a viable cause of action against defendants. Accordingly, Court shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Rashad Brown appeals from an order modifying his probation and requiring him to serve one year in county jail. Defendant's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that we conduct an independent review of the entire record on appeal. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief. After independently reviewing the record, Court find no error or cause for further briefing and therefore shall affirm.

Defendant admitted a probation violation and was sentenced to two years in state prison. In this appeal he claims that the trial court erred by declining to grant him an increase in presentence credits under amendments to Penal Code section 4019 that became effective during the course of his presentence custody.[1] We conclude that section 4019 as amended in 2010 must be given retroactive effect to grant defendant additional sentence credits. Court therefore modify the judgment accordingly.

Appellants William C. Terry and SLIMCO, Inc. (SLIMCO) appeal from a judgment entered in favor of respondent SLICO, a California limited partnership (SLICO), on its cross-complaint for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Court shall affirm.