CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Lorenzo Arteaga appeals from an order entered on August 6, 2008, sustaining his demurrer to a Penal Code section 2970/2972 petition to extend his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO).[1]He also appeals from the trial courts August 8, 2008 order releasing him from custody. On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. Court notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant has submitted two supplemental briefs which we now consider pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal 4th 106. Finding no arguable issue on appeal Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant C.R., mother of baby girl G.R. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions code section 366.26.[1] The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Childrens Services (Department) filed a petition on September 6, 2007 pursuant to section 300, on behalf of newborn G.R. This petition alleged that mother, who was incarcerated at Elmwood Womens Correctional Facility, had a history of drug abuse and criminal convictions. It further alleged that mother had failed to reunify with other children and had no caretaker outside Elmwood available to care for the infant. On October 10, 2007, the court made G.R. a dependent of the court and ordered reunification services for mother.

Appellant A.S. appeals from a judgment entered dismissing dependency jurisdiction over her children F.S. and W.S., awarding custody to their father T.S. and granting her visitation. The original petition filed on April 21, 2006, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, alleged that the children suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their parents, and that the father had a criminal history of domestic violence and substance abuse. As to W.S., the petition further alleged that his parents were unable to appropriately respond to his special needs. The juvenile court ordered the children into protective custody and at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing ordered the children removed. The court also ordered that both parents receive reunification services.

Jonathan Kloor (Jonathan) and Christopher Kloor (Christopher) appeal from the trial courts judgment dismissing their contest of the will and trust of their father, the decedent Richard H. Kloor (Richard), and from the courts judgment dismissing Jonathans petition alleging that Richards wife, Lesli Engelman Kloor (Lesli), abused and neglected Richard under Oregon and California law. Court conclude the trial court did not err in concluding the will was not the product of undue influence and in granting Leslis motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) following the jurys verdict on the abuse and neglect claims.

The parties have been involved in a dispute and related litigation over their residential lease option agreement for more than five years. In 2005, a trial court issued a declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiffs Todd and Lisa Beth. Defendant Everett C. Doughty III appealed, and in January 2007 this court affirmed. Following issuance of that declaratory judgment, plaintiffs sought to tender performance, which defendant rejected on the basis that he had appealed the judgment. Soon thereafter, plaintiffs filed the current action for breach of contract. In 2008, the trial court rendered judgment for defendant, concluding evidence of plaintiffs tender was barred by the automatic statutory stay of Code of Civil Procedure section 916. Court disagree and reverse.

This is the second time this litigation regarding the scope of a prescriptive easement has reached this court. In the first trial, the trial court found an easement for Greg Levy of 66 feet by 70 feet based on unabated use of a parcel of land since the 1940s. On appeal from the judgment entered after the first trial, we reversed, holding that the historical easement found by the trial court had extinguished due to non-use. However, we did find that evidence of more recent use was sufficient to establish a new easement of a more limited scope on the same parcel. We thus remanded the matter to the trial court to determine the boundaries of the easement with more specificity. After another trial, the trial court, following our directions, found an easement covering an area large enough for two parking spots and a narrow footpath only. Both parties have appealed the trial courts decision. Court affirm.

Defendant Norris Bruce Carter appeals the revocation of his probation in two cases, claiming the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed middle term sentences rather than lower term sentences for two felony convictions. As discussed below, Court conclude the court acted within its proper discretion and affirm.

Defendant Kevin C., born in April 1991, appeals orders of the juvenile court declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) and ordering his commitment to the Youth Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) until he reaches age 21, after he was found to have committed residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a)) and admitted violating his probation. His counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Counsel informed defendant in writing that a Wende brief was being filed and that he had the right to personally file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. No supplemental brief has been filed.

Defendant Carl J. Cocomero, as part of a negotiated disposition, pleaded guilty to Count Two of a criminal complaint. The charge he pleaded guilty to was a felony violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (receiving stolen property). The remaining charges were dismissed. His attorney has filed a brief raising no issues and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any issues that could result in reversal or modification of the judgment if resolved in defendants favor. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel declares she notified the defendant that he could file a supplemental brief raising any issue he wishes to call to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been received.
Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm.

N.B. (Mother), mother of ten year old G.G. and four year old K.B., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her children. She contends the juvenile court erred in finding the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply. Court reject the contention and affirm.

Appellant Victor Salgado was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code[1] section 192 and 664, a lesser included offense of the charged crime of attempted murder, one count of battery causing great bodily injury in violation of section 243, subdivision (d), a lesser included offense of the charged crime of mayhem, and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle in violation of section 246. The victim of all three crimes was Roberto Isita. The jury found true the allegations that all the offenses were committed to benefit a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22. With respect to the shooting at a vehicle offense, the jury also found true the allegations that appellant personally used and discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b), (c), and (d), a principal personally used and discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (c), (d) and (e), and a principal was armed within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). The jury further found true the allegation that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of 30 years to life in state prison.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to question appellant's girlfriend about his prior bad acts and in denying his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.

Maria Recinos appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which she was convicted in count 1 of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211) with the finding that during the commission of the offense she personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, to wit, a knife, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), in count 3 of carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(4)), and in count 4 of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245 subd. (a)(1)). Imposition of sentence was suspended, and she was placed on formal probation for three years under certain terms and conditions. She contends count 3 must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the knife found in her pocket was ready to use as a stabbing device as required by Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(4). For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff owns an apartment building on Durango Street in Los Angeles. When he bought the building, in 1998, there was a single family home in the lot directly south of his. In 2002, defendant AUM bought that lot, planning to build a multi-unit condominium with underground parking, to be called Durango Manor. (Defendant Xurolif is AUM's general partner.) AUM hired defendant Fargo, a contractor, and in January 2003, demolished the house and began excavation.
In November 2004, plaintiff brought this lawsuit for negligence, trespass, strict liability for failure to comply with Civil Code section 832, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, contending, inter alia, that his building was damaged by the excavation. Court affirm.

William Bernard Morgan appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (c)(1)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for four years. Court affirm the judgment.