CA Unpub Decisions

On appeal defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to conduct an in-camera Marsden hearing the first time he made complaints about trial counsel's representation of him and that his counsel erred in failing to request a Marsden hearing at that point. The trial court eventually relieved his initial counsel and appointed new counsel. In a related contention, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to provide new counsel with transcripts of the hearing at which defendant's first attorney was relieved.

Scott F. is the father of V.F., U.F., O.F, and M.F. (together the minors.) Scott appeals from orders of the juvenile court following a disposition hearing held under section 361, subdivision (c). He asserts that the court erred by denying him placement of the minors under section 361.2. Court affirm the order.

Plaintiffs Tyler Paulson and Skorpion Enterprises, Inc. (Skorpion; collectively, Hells Kitchen) own and operate Hells Kitchen, a restaurant and bar on Ortega Highway. In their complaint for inverse condemnation, they allege that defendant, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in the course of making improvements to Ortega Highway, has impeded and, for eight hours every day, totally blocked access to and from Hells Kitchen.
The trial court sustained a demurrer on the ground that the complaint failed to allege a compensable injury to Hells Kitchens property. court agree. Hence, Court will affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict against defendant and appellant J. R. Smeed and in favor of plaintiff and respondent J. B. Canton. The issues raised in the appeal are without merit.Court will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Gary Glenn Walker, Jr. was convicted of felony hit and run resulting in injury, and various misdemeanors. On appeal, he contends (1) the trial court misadvised him regarding the consequences of withdrawing his request for bifurcation, and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to evidence of his prior convictions; (2) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to provide proof at trial that defendant was authorized to use medical marijuana; and (3) the trial court erred when it failed to instruct on one of the elements of giving false information to a peace officer. Court will affirm the judgment.

Appellant, Donald Robinson, pled no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a))and admitted a great bodily injury enhancement ( 12022.7, subd. (e)). On December 30, 2008, the trial court sentenced Robinson to an aggregate term of seven years.
On appeal, Robinson contends the trial court denied him his right to represent himself. court will affirm.

Appellant Alexander Petersen (Alexander) and respondent Greti Petersen (Greti) are natives of Romania who were married and had a son, A.A., born on June 30, 2000. In 2002, Greti petitioned for dissolution of marriage in Ventura County Superior Court. The court entered a partial judgment of dissolution on December 15, 2004. After the entry of judgment, Greti and A.A. moved to Kern County and Alexander moved to Los Angeles County. On October 31, 2007, the Ventura County Superior Court transferred the dissolution action to Kern County.
In the years following the judgment of dissolution, the parties had ongoing disputes concerning the requirements of the child custody and visitation orders arising from the dissolution of marriage. On January 22, 2009, the Kern County Superior Court filed findings and an order after hearing addressing the custody of A.A.; Alexanders right to reasonable visitation with A.A. (including weekend, summer, holiday, and school break visitation); visitation exchanges; daily and emergency health care for A.A.; parental travel plans with A.A.; and A.A.s schooling and extracurricular activities. In a separate order filed on January 22, 2009, the court ruled that A.A.s passport would be held in a safe place by the financial officer of the Kern County Superior Court pending further orders. On February 27, 2009, Alexander filed a timely notice of appeal from both orders of January 22, 2009. Court affirm.

On April 30, 2008, appellant, Brian Carlsen, pled no contest to grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a), count 1). The trial court granted the prosecutors motion to reduce the allegation from a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17. The complaint alleged a prior prison term enhancement. Appellant pled no contest to a consolidated felony allegation of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)). Appellant also pled no contest to four misdemeanor allegations. At the change of plea hearing, the court noted it had the probation report and placed appellant on probation. The court advised appellant he had a right to appeal within 60 days of the courts order.

On May 6, 2009, appellant, Ernestina Philmena Calderon, was charged with six codefendants in a consolidated information with felony vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a)). On May 28, 2009, appellant entered into a plea agreement in which she would admit the vandalism allegation and be placed on probation upon various terms and conditions.

.S. (mother) appeals from a superior court order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26)[1]. She contends we should review the superior courts earlier decision to deny her reunification services ( 361.5, subd. (b)(10)) because she claims she received incorrect notice of her remedy in this court. She also challenges the superior courts subsequent decision to deny a modification petition ( 388) she filed seeking to reunify with her son. In her view, the court misunderstood the relief she sought and therefore did not exercise its discretion. Alternatively, she argues she was entitled to modification of the order denying her services because there was substantial evidence to support her claims. On review, Court disagree with mothers contentions and affirm.

A trust beneficiary challenges the former trustees administration of a family trust whose assets were concentrated in two privately-held real estate investment trusts (REITs.) The beneficiary claims the trust lost about $20 million in virtually certain stock appreciation by selling about 40 percent of the trusts interest in one of the REITs, and that the former trustee had a disqualifying conflict of interest because he bought for his own purposes additional shares of the same REIT, in which he was an officer and shareholder.
Court hold that the trial court properly interpreted the trust agreement and approved the former trustees accounting. Substantial evidence supports the trial courts determination that the trustee acted reasonably and prudently in selling assets to diversify the trusts investment portfolio, reduce its debt, and provide income to the trust beneficiaries. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Appellants Greg Garcia and David Alvizo were convicted of first degree murder and street terrorism, with attendant firearm use and gang enhancements. On appeal, they raise over a dozen claims relating to the trial courts handling of their case. We reject their claims for the most part but will remand for correction of certain sentencing errors and partial resentencing. In all other respects, Court affirm.

A jury convicted Linda Reszetylo (Appellant) of the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Nancy Terry (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)). The jury found true the special allegations that in committing attempted murder, Appellant discharged a firearm proximately causing Terry great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53(d), personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53(c), and personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53(b). The trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison with the possibility of parole and imposed a consecutive sentence of 25 years to life for the enhancement under section 12022.53(b). The court stayed imposition of sentence for the other two enhancements.

A jury convicted appellant Robert Ryan Powell of aggravated assault and found to be true the allegation he personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the assault. The trial court sentenced Powell to three years for the assault and a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement for a total of six years. Powell contends the great bodily injury enhancement must be set aside because it was not supported by substantial evidence that the victims injuries constituted great bodily injury. Court disagree and therefore affirm the judgment.