CA Unpub Decisions

Michael and Kimberly Klein were the divorced parents of Talia. They agreed to modify an existing marital settlement agreement to provide child support for Talia and to require that Michael procure a life insurance policy that would guarantee those payments. The policy names the mother, as trustee for Talia's benefit. Three years later, father and daughter die in an airplane crash. Here we hold that the child's death ended the obligation to pay support and mother has no claim to the insurance proceeds. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Appellant B.R. was declared a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after she admitted receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a).[1] An earlier order of home on probation was modified to require appellant to spend five days in juvenile hall and temporary placement of appellant was vested in the probation department. The court fixed her maximum period of confinement at three years eight months.
In her timely appeal, appellant argues the juvenile court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence under section 700.1 and in establishing a maximum period of confinement. Court affirm.

A jury found defendant and appellant Edmond Owens (defendant) guilty of attempted possession of cocaine base. On appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his Pitchess[1]motion for the production of the personnel records of one of the two police officers who testified against him. Defendant also requests that we review the record of the trial courts in camera proceeding concerning the discovery of the personnel records of the other officer who testified at trial. And, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay attorney fees without conducting a hearing on his ability to pay those fees and without any evidence in the record as to the amount of those fees.
Court hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Pitchess motion as to one of the two officers who testified, that the trial court correctly concluded after an in camera review that there were no discoverable documents as to the other officer, and that there is insufficient evidence to support the order requiring defendant to pay attorney fees. Court therefore affirm the judgment of conviction, but reverse the order requiring defendant to pay attorney fees and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to hold a hearing on defendants ability to pay attorney fees.

David Moore appeals from the post-judgment order revoking his probation and executing a previously suspended state prison sentence. On May 22, 2007, Moore was charged in a single count felony complaint with possession of a concealed firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12025, subdivision (a)(2). On May 30, 2007, Moore waived his right to a preliminary hearing and trial and pleaded no contest to the charged offense. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Moore on three years formal probation on condition he serve 19 days in county jail with credit for time served. Among the conditions of probation, Moore was ordered to perform 45 days of service for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The post-judgment order revoking probation and executing the previously suspended state prison sentence is affirmed.

H.R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition. She also appeals from the juvenile courts dispositional order removing her daughter, L.B., from her custody. Court reject her challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and affirm.

The plaintiff filed a class action against his employer, alleging the employer had violated the Labor and Business and Professions Codes by denying meal and rest periods and then failing to pay wages due as a result. The employer moved to compel arbitration, asserting the plaintiff was bound by a written arbitration agreement. In opposition, the plaintiff argued the purported agreement, which precluded all class, collective and representative actions (among other limitations), was unconscionable on multiple grounds and therefore unenforceable; at the very least, he urged, he should be granted a continuance to conduct discovery pursuant to Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, 463. The trial court granted the petition to compel arbitration, and the plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate. Because the employers arbitration agreement contains multiple defects and is unenforceable as a result, Court grant the petition for writ of mandate as this matter should proceed in a court of law.

T.V. the mother of A.V. appeals the juvenile dependency courts order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 388 petition seeking return of the minor to her custody, or liberalized visitation or conjoint counseling. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude the juvenile dependency court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the petition. The court granted the request for conjoint counseling and properly denied the other relief because T.V. failed to show a change of circumstances or the proposed changes would benefit A.V. Accordingly Court affirm.

Minor C.M. appeals from a juvenile court order dismissing a dependency petition. Appellant contends that the order must be reversed because substantial evidence supported sustaining the petition. The proper standard of review is abuse of discretion, not substantial evidence. Applying the abuse of discretion standard, we have reviewed the entire record to determine whether appellant has met his burden to show that the juvenile courts order was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. Court conclude that appellant has not met his burden and Court affirm the order.

William Nelson Morgan (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459).[1] The trial court sentenced appellant to the low term of 16 months in state prison. Court appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal. The following facts were adduced at trial: On November 17, 2008, at 10:38 a.m., Covina Police Department Officer John Malinoski received a call that someone had triggered the alarm at the Carvin Guitars store, which had been closed for business for almost a month. Officer Malinoski arrived at the scene two minutes later. Officer Malinoski saw a white Ford Explorer parked near the backdoor with its engine running. Officer Malinoski also observed a broken lock dangling from the stores backdoor. Appellant emerged from inside the store holding a handful of items, several of which carried the Carvin Guitars label. Officer Malinoski saw appellant place the items in the rear seat of the Explorer. The officer detained appellant and searched the Explorer. Inside the vehicle, he found several additional items with the Carvin Guitars label and a two foot long crowbar. There was white and gray colored transfer paint on the crowbar. The paint appeared to match the stores backdoor which had been painted white, and then gray.

L.K. (father) appeals from the judgment of March 9, 2009, declaring L., I., and L., Jr., (the children) dependents of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Father argues that the dependency court failed to give him a meaningful opportunity to qualify as a presumed father. Father contends it was a violation of due process and Penal Code section 2625 to hold the jurisdiction/disposition hearing without giving him an opportunity to appear and be heard. He asks us to reverse the judgment and remand for appointment of counsel and a new jurisdiction/disposition hearing, and consideration of his sister for relative placement.

Father A.A. appeals from the termination of his parental rights as to four of his eight children who were subjects of this dependency proceeding. He argues the juvenile court erred by failing to comply with Welfare and Institutions Code section 349, subdivision (d)[1]which requires the juvenile court to inquire whether a minor was notified of dependency hearings, wished to be present, and was given an opportunity to attend. While the issue was forfeited by failure to object, we conclude there was no violation in any event because separate counsel for the minor waived his appearance at the relevant hearings. Father also challenges the courts finding that the children were adoptable. Court find substantial evidence to support that finding.

After watching defendant Ruben Gerardo Robles struggle to maintain his balance while riding a bicycle, police officers approached. Defendant stopped riding and dropped come plastic containing methamphetamine. Defendant was charged by information on December 31, 2008, with one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Safe. Code, 11377, subd. (a)). It was further alleged defendant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and had served three separate prison terms for felonies (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)).
On December 31, 2008, represented by appointed counsel, defendant made a motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 1385; People v. Superior Court (Romero) 13 Cal.4th 497), which the trial court heard and denied. Defendant agreed to enter a plea of no contest and to admit the 1988 conviction for residential burglary as a prior strike conviction in return for an aggregate state prison sentence of 32 months. The remaining prior prison term allegations were to be dismissed.

M.V. (mother) appeals from the judgment of March 25, 2009, declaring her daughters, J.C. and Z.M., dependents of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Mother contends substantial evidence does not support the sustained allegations of the petition or the order removing Z. from her custody. Court hold substantial evidence supports the findings and order, and affirm the judgment.

On April 9, 2008, defendant Raul Anthony Flores was riding a bicycle and failed to stop at stop sign, a violation of Vehicle Code section 22450, subdivision (a). A police officer stopped him to issue a traffic citation and, with Floress permission, searched his pockets for safety related reasons. That search yielded a glass pipe with burn marks and what looked to the officer like the residue of methamphetamine, and a box containing sixty one .22 caliber bullets.