CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Edward D. (father) appeals from orders asserting jurisdiction over his children Nicole D., Curtis D., and Aaron D., and removing them from his custody. He contends insufficient evidence showed his possession of child pornography and subsequent arrest caused or risked causing serious emotional harm to his children. Court disagree, and affirm.

Cardenas claims the court erred in denying his motion. Court disagree and affirm the order.

Here, police officers arrested defendant and his girlfriend in a motel room for being under the influence. Defendant was placed in a patrol car, and his girl friend was handcuffed in the room. While she was in the custody of one officer, the other seized a mans hat that was on the floor and then searched inside it, finding contraband. The trial court denied a motion to suppress finding that the search came within the exception to the warrant requirement established in Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752 (Chimel) for a search incident to an arrest. We reverse. As the United States Supreme Court recently made clear in Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. ___ [192 S.Ct. 1710; 173 L.Ed.2d 485] (Gant), the exception for a search incident to an arrest is based on actual need to prevent an arrestee from obtaining a weapon or destroying evidence. Where, as here, there is no reasonable possibility that the arrestee can do so at the time an object or area is searched, the exception is simply inapplicable.

A.M. appeals from a judgment declaring him to be a ward of the court and placing him on probation following a contested jurisdiction hearing in a delinquency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.(See 725, subd. (b), 800, subd. (a).) He argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying a Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ), the evidence was insufficient to support the order compelling an AIDS blood test, and the probation condition prohibiting certain associations is vague and overbroad.

Sauers argues that the superior court gave too much deference to the Board and that Court should modify the ruling and order his immediate release. In the alternative, Sauers contends that we should modify the ruling to order the Board to find him suitable for parole absent new evidence to show that he is a current public safety risk. court have concluded, however, that the problem with the Boards decision is its apparent failure to apply the analysis required by Lawrence. It is not the role of this court to undertake that analysis, which is what Court would have to do in order to grant the relief Sauers requests. Accordingly, Court reject the request.

A modification decision.

M.F.s mother, J.F. appeals an order of the trial court denying a request for a contested hearing and selecting a permanent plan of guardianship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26 for M.F. On appeal, J.F. asserts the trial court erred in denying her counsels request for a contested hearing to determine the permanent plan.

Defendant Daniel Caudillo Aguilar pleaded no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a suspended license, and he admitted having suffered three prior convictions for driving under the influence. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation under certain specified conditions.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the penalty assessments imposed exceeded the amount permitted by law. Specifically, he argues that the aggregate assessments should have been $1,380, rather than the $1,590 amount imposed. Court conclude that the total amount of penalty assessments should have been $1,500 and that the judgment should have reflected the statutory grounds for each assessment imposed. Accordingly, Court will modify the order granting probation to reflect the total amount of the assessments to be $1,500, identify the bases for each of the assessments, and affirm the order as modified.

Defendants Sygen International, PLC, (Sygen) and Genus, PLC, (Genus) appeal from a judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of plaintiff Henricus van der Steen on his causes of action for breach of contract, breach of an implied contract of continued employment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants raise numerous claims of error. Court reverse the judgment.

Defendant was convicted by jury trial of one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a)). The information also contained a special allegation regarding the statute of limitations, pursuant to section 803, former subdivision (g)(1). Near the end of trial, the court struck the special allegation at the request of the prosecution, and over defendants objection. On appeal, defendant contends that the striking of this allegation violated his constitutional rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel, and that the courts denial of his subsequent continuance motion was an abuse of discretion. Court disagree and affirm.

Sean and Melissa Morton contested the validity of a codicil to Seans mothers will and a second amendment to her trust which deprived them of a Lake Tahoe condominium. They went to mediation and reached a tentative settlement. They appeal from an order denying their motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The sole issue is whether the order was supported by substantial evidence.Court conclude that it was and affirm the order.

Giacomo Russo appeals an order awarding attorney fees and costs to his former spouse, Carol Smith. Because Russo received proper notice of the motion, and agreed in a stipulated judgment of dissolution that he would pay the full amount of fees Smith owed her attorney in this matter, Court affirm.

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to one count of identification theft (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a)), pursuant to a negotiated disposition. The trial court sentenced the defendant to three years in state prison and ordered him to pay $34,489.56 in restitution. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying him the right to a hearing on the amount of restitution; respondent concedes the error. Court accept the concession, reverse the order of restitution, and remand the matter to the trial court in order for a restitution hearing to be conducted.

Levarn Cavers, Jr. appeals from a judgment revoking and reinstating his probation and sentencing him to one year in the county jail. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support a probation violation. Court affirm.