CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Helen Sophia Purdy slashed open the leg of a man who was standing outside a bar with a group of people. The gash was 14 inches long and penetrated nearly to the bone, gaping open four inches wide. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1); further section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified) and other charges were dismissed, including those in a separate case against defendant.

Beatrice McKim died after spending several weeks at a 24-hour skilled nursing facility, operated by Kindred Nursing Centers West, LLC ("Village Square"). McKim's daughter, Patricia Kohler, brought an action against Village Square, and several other defendants, including a separate corporate entity identified as Kindred Healthcare, Inc. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. successfully moved to quash the service of the summons based on the lack of personal jurisdiction. Kohler appeals. court affirm.

Kiran Shah appeals from a judgment in favor of Roberto Montoya on Montoya's claims against him for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. He contends that substantial evidence does not support the trial court's findings on Montoya's claims, or the compensatory and punitive damages awards. He also claims the trial court erred in rejecting his defense of accord and satisfaction. Court conclude that substantial evidence does not support the punitive damages award and reverse that part of the judgment. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

This action involves a dispute between Dennis J. Crooks and his sisters, Margaret E. Cirillo and Joan Meyer, regarding a trust created by their father, the John Crooks Separate Property Trust (the Trust). Dennis was named as the sole trustee of the Trust. After John died, all parties to this appeal became trust beneficiaries. (Another sister and trust beneficiary, Elizabeth Miller, did not participate in the litigation.) Margaret and Joan objected to Dennis's first account and report of trust assets, and petitioned to have him removed as trustee for breaches of his fiduciary duties. The trial court found that Dennis had committed numerous breaches of his fiduciary duties, removed him as trustee, and appointed a successor trustee.

Daniel Robert Hitchner appeals an order denying his petition for relief pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4 from his earlier guilty plea to importing and possessing child pornography. He contends in part that the superior court relied on inadmissible evidence in denying his petition and failed to exercise its discretionary power to grant his petition even if it concluded that he had violated the conditions of his probation in certain respects. court agree that the superior court relied on certain inadmissible evidence and conclude that it failed to apply the correct legal standard in ruling on Hitchner's petition. As a result, Court reverse the order and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Robert and Helene Quigley established a family trust providing that upon the surviving spouse's death, the trust assets would be distributed equally to their three adult children, Lawrence Quigley, Phillip Quigley and Clarice Dolly Toler (Dolly).[1] Several years after both parents died, the Brothers, who were the successor cotrustees, obtained a judgment that Dolly violated the trust's no contest clause and forfeited her one-third interest in the trust based on her answer to the Brothers' unlawful detainer complaint. Dolly appeals. Court reverse. The language of the no contest clause does not reflect an intent to disinherit a beneficiary based on the filing of this defensive pleading under the particular circumstances of this case.

A jury found Somkhouane Nick Vignarath guilty of receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d).[1] The court found true allegations that Vignarath had a prior vehicle theft conviction (Veh. Code, 10851; 666.5, subd. (a)) and had served a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)) for that conviction. The court sentenced Vignarath to four years in prison: the three-year middle term for receiving a stolen vehicle with a prior vehicle theft conviction, and one year for the prison prior. Vignarath appeals. Court affirm.

David Paul Stein pleaded guilty to six counts of lewd acts with a child, involving the fondling of his 13-year-old foster daughter's breasts and buttocks. At the time of the plea, the trial court committed to a six-year lid on any prison sentence, and indicated it had the authority to consider probation. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and sentenced Stein to three years in prison. Stein appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to prison without ordering a psychological evaluation under Penal Code section 288.1 to assess his eligibility for probation. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Court conclude the trial court was not required to order a section 288.1 report before finding Stein ineligible for probation.

Plaintiffs and appellants Henry and Fatima Hernandez appeal after the trial court sustained the demurrer of defendant and respondent Danilo D. Magat to plaintiffs second amended complaint for breach of contract, fraud and other causes of action, arising out of an alleged failure to procure insurance on a home they had purchased. The appeal is from a judgment of dismissal after sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. Court reverse.

This is an appeal from an order granting an anti-SLAPP motion brought by defendant and respondent David R. Griffith. (See Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (i) [order granting or denying special motion to strike is an appealable order].) Plaintiff and appellant Brenda M. Lopez contends the trial court erred in concluding that the anti-SLAPP statute was applicable in this case and that she had not established a probability she would prevail on the merits of her causes of action. Court will conclude the trial court did not err and, accordingly, will affirm the order striking all of the causes of action against respondent.

A jury convicted Jerome Lee Cross of: (1) stalking Varnetta Griggs between June 1, 2008, and January 7, 2009 (Pen. Code, 646.9, subd. (a); count 1); (2) making criminal threats against Varnetta Griggs and Rafael Pena on or about December 7, 2008 ( 422; count 2); and (3) making criminal threats against Varnetta Griggs on or about January 7, 2009 ( 422; count 3). In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true allegations that Cross suffered three prior convictions for which he served prison terms and failed to remain free of custody for five years after the prison terms concluded ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Cross to state prison for five years and eight months, comprised of the three-year upper term for count 1, a consecutive eight-month term for count 2, and two years for the separate prior prison terms. The trial court imposed a concurrent three year term for count 3.

C.A. (mother) appeals from a 2009 order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her daughter, D., who has been a dependent child of the Fresno County Superior Court since 2001. Mother joins in arguments raised by the childs father in his appeal from the termination order (In re D.E.; F058205). He claimed the court erred, dating back to 2001, because there was no on-the-record inquiry of either parent regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act (IWCA; 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). He also challenged the courts finding at the section 366.26 hearing that it was likely D. would be adopted. On review, we affirmed. The father forfeited his first argument by failing to raise it when respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services first affirmatively stated in 2001 that ICWA did not apply. As to fathers challenge to the adoptability finding, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the finding. Because mother has not raised any independent claim of error, Court conclude the court properly terminated her parental rights.

D.E. (father) appeals from a 2009 order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to his daughter, D. D. has been a dependent child of the Fresno County Superior Court since 2001. Father contends the court erred, dating back to 2001, because there was no on the record inquiry of either parent regarding Native American heritage for the purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (IWCA; 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). He also challenges the courts finding at the section 366.26 hearing that it was likely D. would be adopted. On review, Court affirm.

H.G. (mother) appealed from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her two year old daughter, E.G.[1] After reviewing the entire record, mothers court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court he found no arguable issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel requested, and this court granted, leave for mother to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error does exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835.) Mother has since faxed to this court a letter in which she claims she was not properly represented by her court-appointed trial attorney at the jurisdictional phase of her daughters dependency proceedings. Mother accuses him of withholding evidence and tricking her into submitting to the allegations but provides no details. She contends she would have never submitted to these allegations had she known the circumstances or the consequences. She also accuses a social worker assigned to the case during the reunification period of lying but again provides no details.