CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants and appellants J.Q. (Mother), D.Q. (Father), and the maternal grandmother, D.N. (Grandmother) appeal from the juvenile courts ruling terminating the parental rights of parents to S.Q. and Z.Q., their twin daughters (the twins) on February 4, 2009, under Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 366.26. Both parents contend the juvenile court erred (1) in denying their section 388 petition seeking return of the children to their custody or, in the alternative, placement with Grandmother; (2) in finding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption did not apply; and (3) in finding that the sibling relationship exception to adoption did not apply. Grandmother also challenges the juvenile courts denial of her section 388 petition and claims that she was denied her due process rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses at the hearing on her petition. For the reasons described below, Court affirm the courts ruling.

Defendant and appellant Macedonio Jose Arellano was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1).)[1] The jury also found true the allegation that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members. ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).) Defendants appeal challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurys true finding on the gang allegation.

In November, 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and being in possession of a loaded firearm that was not registered to her and was placed on probation (case No. BAF005763). Nine months later, defendant was charged with burglary of a home in Calimesa (case No. BAF006181), from which the firearm had been taken. She moved to dismiss the second complaint on the ground that the possession of the loaded firearm and the burglary were all part of a continuous course of conduct and should have been prosecuted together. The motion was denied. Defendant then pleaded guilty to first degree burglary.

Police responding to a domestic violence report found a woman with a bloody mouth and a small cut on her thigh. She told them that her boyfriend, defendant William George Trudell, had hit her with an ax. According to her testimony at trial, however, he merely used the ax to tap a plate that was on her lap, which broke and cut her thigh; if her mouth was bloody, it was because she bit her own lip.

Pursuant to a plea agreement on March 3, 2009, defendant Gerald Lamar Jacks, represented by counsel, pled guilty to possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) while armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c)) (count 2), and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 4). In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was sentenced to the stipulated term of eight years in state prison with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. His amended notice of appeal challenges the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.

Mother P.J.A. (Mother) appeals after the termination of her parental rights to her daughters, P.A. and S.A., at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.

Pursuant to a plea agreement on July 16, 2009, defendant Douglas Gordon Kelley, represented by counsel, pled guilty to one count of first degree or residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459),[1]and admitted that he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony strike conviction ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was sentenced to the stipulated term of 12 years in state prison with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. His notice of appeal challenges the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.

Plaintiff and its attorney appeal from an order imposing sanctions on the attorney for filing a second amended complaint which the court concluded was not supported by an evidentiary basis for the factual allegations it contained. Appellants assert there was a sufficient evidentiary basis in the declarations signed by plaintiffs members and in the verified allegations of the second amended complaint itself. Appellants also argue that the court erred in sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer to the breach of trust cause of action of the first amended complaint. We reverse the order imposing sanctions against plaintiffs attorney; Court find the order sustaining the demurrer to the breach of trust cause of action is beyond the scope of this appeal.

Appellant Chad Michael Hosburgh stands convicted, following his no contest plea, of misdemeanor possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1).) He was admitted to probation on condition, inter alia, that he serve 60 days in jail. He now appeals, claiming the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. (Id., 1538.5.) For the reasons that follow, Court will affirm.

The underlying case concerns the merger of two religious corporations. Guru Nanak Mission of Bakersfield, Inc. (Guru Nanak) merged with Guru Nanak Mission Sikh Center (Sikh Center) with Sikh Center as the surviving corporation. Plaintiffs and respondents, Gursharan Singh Grewal, Binder Dhaliwal, Sharnjit K. Dhaliwal, Surjit S. Dhaliwal, Navdeep S. Dhillon, Ajaib Singh Gill, Harsharan Singh Gill, Manjinder Gill, Rupinder Singh Jhaj, Jaswant Khokar, Nazar Singh Kooner, Satnam S. Manku, Surat Singh, and Tarminder Singh, sought to void the merger through a complaint filed against defendants and appellants, Sikh Center, Nirbhai Singh Chehal, Ranjit Singh, and Gurcharan S. Dhillon.

Defendant Erdenechuluun Batochir was admitted to probation for six years after a jury found him guilty of the lesser included charges of battering a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1)) and misdemeanor false imprisonment (Pen. Code, 236, 237, subd. (a)). On this timely appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) denying his motion for a mistrial made on the ground that the court failed to make an adequate inquiry into whether a juror removed for misconduct had tainted the jury; (2) again, failing to make an adequate inquiry into the ability of another juror to continue deliberating; and (3) imposing as a condition of probation a requirement that defendant submit to warrantless searches and seizures. Court conclude that no abuse of discretion is shown, and affirm.

This is, as plaintiffs closing trial brief described it, a very simple case. Defendant owned a shopping center which consisted of three buildings, designated A, B, and C. Plaintiffs leased space in Building A in which they operated a Quiznos franchise where they sold sandwiches, under a lease that had an exclusivity provision. When plaintiffs learned that a tenant in Building B was also selling sandwiches, they complained to defendant, to no avail, and then sued, asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.
The fundamental issue at the court trial was whether the exclusivity provision applied to the other building. The court held that it did, and awarded plaintiffs $37,725 for breach of lease (substantially less than they claimed) and declaratory relief. The court rejected the fraud and misrepresentation claims. As prevailing parties, plaintiffs sought attorneys fees under the lease, seeking a total of $271,055, including $24,649 for the fee motion itself. The trial court awarded $85,537, omitting any reference to the amount sought in the fee motion.

Attorney Eugene Schneider appeals from an order approving the final distribution of assets in the estate of Emitt B. Jackson. He does not challenge the final distribution. Rather, he contends the probate court abused its discretion by awarding him $20,912.50 in extraordinary compensation pursuant to Probate Code section 10811 instead of the $62,737.50 he requested. Court affirm.

The minor, J.Z., challenges the juvenile court order selecting guardianship as the permanent plan. He argues that respondents C.W. (mother) and Frederick Z. (father) failed to meet their burden to show that the exception to termination of parental rights for parents who have continuing beneficial relationships with their dependent children applied here. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)[1] We conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts order.