CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant V.D. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following the finding he committed grand theft of personal property as alleged in a petition filed February 14, 2008. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a).) The offense was declared to be a misdemeanor. Appellant, who was 12 years old at the time of the offense, was placed home on probation and contends there was insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption he was incapable of committing theft. He additionally claims there was insufficient evidence to support the finding he committed theft. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the order of wardship.

I.F. (mother) appeals an order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, terminating her parental rights to her son, R.H., Jr. (R.H.). Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in not applying the exception to termination codified in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) for parents who show that such termination would be detrimental to the child (Exception). Court find overwhelming evidence supports the implied finding that mother failed to establish the applicability of the Exception. Court affirm.

Richard Pelletier, also known as Richard Lionel Pelletier, Jr., appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to petty theft with priors (Pen. Code, 666, count 1) and admission of one prior felony strike within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). He did not request a certificate of probable cause. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to the midterm of two years, doubled to four years as a second strike. The judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiffs have appealed from the adverse summary judgment entered on their complaint for wrongful life, medical malpractice, and loss of consortium. Based on our determination that triable issues of material fact exist with regard to the standard of care and causation, Court reverse and remand for further proceedings.

J.Y., Sr. ("Father") appeals orders of the juvenile court denying his modification petition, declaring that his son J. is adoptable, and terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388, 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Gary Don Baldwin of 13 counts of sexual abuse committed against his stepdaughter (Pen. Code 269, subd. (a)(4); 288, subd. (b)(1); 288, subd. (a)), and two counts of child abuse committed against another daughter and son. (Pen. Code, 273a, subds. (a), (b).) Defendant admitted a charged prior conviction and the court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 126 years, 8 months plus 90 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) admitting evidence of uncharged acts under Evidence Code sections 1108 and 352, and (2) excluding testimony relating to other allegedly false charges made by defendants wife, G., and stepdaughter M. There was no error, and Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Angelica Garner appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court dismissed her personal injury action for failure to bring it to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., 583.310.)[1] She contends the trial court erred in declining to toll the five-year period (1) for 179 days, while it was impossible to bring the suit to trial within five years because a courtroom was unavailable; and (2) for 239 days, due to the mandatory application of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) (50 U.S.C. Appen. 521 et seq.) Except for one 34-day trial continuance, which may be regarded as having been granted pursuant to the SCRA, the trial court did not err. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Lance Dene Brittain and Larry Ray Phillips of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)), robbery (id., 211) and attempted murder (id., 664, 187, subd. (a), 189). The jury also convicted Brittain of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), and Phillips of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)). As discussed below, Court find the contentions raised by Brittain and Phillips to be without merit and affirm.

This appeal challenges an order denying a motion, brought by a group of defendants, for an award of attorney fees as costs, after the complaint naming them was involuntarily dismissed for lack of service of all indispensable parties. (Code Civ. Proc., 1032, 1033.5.) Defendants and appellants, William Altman, et al. (29 persons, referred to as appellants), are among the homeowners of 48 units in a condominium project, all of whom were sued by the owners of nearby property, plaintiff Center Associates, L.P. (respondent), for declaratory relief to interpret the governing documents affecting the homeowners' property by, in part, establishing their easement rights over certain property owned by plaintiff. Appellants seek reversal of the trial court's order denying their request for fees, pursuant to Civil Code section 1717, under an attorney fees provision in the governing documents.
Court reject appellants' contentions that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in denying their motion for attorney fees. Appellants do not at this time qualify under the definitions in section 1717, subdivision (b)(1), as prevailing parties on the contract who are therefore entitled to an award of attorney fees as costs. The trial court correctly applied the statute and Court affirm the order denying attorney fees.

The prosecution charged Omar Aispuro with possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1)). Aispuro filed a section 1538.5 motion to suppress the ammunition evidence found in a search of his person, arguing his detention was unlawful and all evidence found in a search following the unlawful detention should be suppressed. The trial court denied the motion, finding police reasonably detained Aispuro. A jury subsequently convicted Aispuro of illegal possession of ammunition. The court sentenced him to the middle term of two years in prison.
Aispuro appeals, contending (1) the court erred by denying his section 1538.5 motion, and (2) on appeal the People rely on a theory not previously raised at the suppression hearing. We conclude the court properly denied Aispuro's motion to suppress evidence. Court further conclude the People raised all necessary theories at the suppression hearing to permit assertion of the theories on appeal, and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Patrick Jeremiah Sheridan was found guilty of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1]and grand theft ( 487, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence for three years and placed defendant on probation on various terms and conditions, including that he serve 90 days in a weekend custody program.
Defendant makes one claim on appeal: The probation condition that he [r]eside at a residence approved by the Probation Officer and not move without his/her prior consent should be stricken because it is not reasonably related to his crime or future criminality and is an overbroad, unconstitutional infringement of his rights to travel and freedom of association.
Court agree with defendant that the condition was unreasonable but modify rather than strike it. In addition, although not raised by defendant, Court modify another probation condition restricting him from associating with those on probation and parole, which as written is unconstitutionally vague. Court otherwise affirm the judgment.

Hernandez chose this occasion to ask Dana to have her lawyer stop calling him. According to Dana and other witnesses, he added loudly that, if her lawyer called him again, he would disclose certain discreditable and unprofessional conduct by her (the accusation). Hernandez denies making the accusation at this point.bDana called the police. According to one of the responding officers, Hernandez admitted having made the accusation earlier. Hernandez then repeated the accusation directly to the officers, but loudly and in the presence of other parents and children.

Defendant and appellant Boyce Cornelius Battle appeals his jury conviction for a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code 288, subd. (a).) On due process grounds, defendant challenges the trial courts admission of prior acts evidence during his trial.

The People contend on appeal that the trial court, pursuant to section 1050, subdivision (a), should have given precedence to the instant case over civil cases; in particular, it should have used a courtroom designated as a civil-only department in the downtown Riverside courthouse and the Hawthorne civil courtrooms.[2] Moreover, the trial court should have contacted the family, probate, and other designated noncriminal courtrooms to inquire if they could hear the instant matter. The refusal to make such inquiry, the denial of the request to continue the case, and resultant dismissal constituted errors of law by the trial court, and the charges against defendant should be reinstated. Court find the trial court here did not abuse its discretion by dismissing defendants case based on the unavailability of any courtrooms to try the case and by denying a continuance. Court affirm the dismissal of the case.