CA Unpub Decisions

A.B. (father), father of B.B., appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders entered following a hearing under Welfare & Institutions Code section 361.[1] Father contends that the orders should be reversed and the matter remanded for a new jurisdictional hearing, on the grounds that: (1) fathers due process rights under the United States and California constitutions, and his statutory right under Penal Code section 2625, were denied when the juvenile court refused to grant a continuance so father could be present to testify at the hearing; (2) the court abused its discretion in failing to grant fathers request to continue the jurisdictional hearing so that he could be present; and (3) substantial evidence did not support the findings of the court. Court affirm.

C.K. (Mother) appeals from a January 30, 2009 order summarily denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking reunification services with her three children, twins born in November 2004 (the Twins) and a daughter born in June 2007 (Daughter). Court affirm the order because the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mothers request to modify a prior order denying reunification services.

Defendant, Adrian Turnage, appeals from a judgment after he pled no contest to firearm assault. (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (a).) On the prosecutions motion, the trial court dismissed a gang allegation. ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B).)
At the time of the plea, defendant was represented by Deputy Public Defender, Cynthia Yuen. On November 25, 2008, through new counsel, Madeline C. Chang, defendant moved to withdraw his no contest plea on the grounds of: ineffective assistance of counsel; failure to advise of constitutional rights; and failure to specify direct consequences of a no contest plea. The trial court conducted evidentiary hearings on the plea withdrawal motion on November 25, 2008, and January 9, 2009. On January 9, 2009, the trial court denied defendants motion to withdraw his plea. Also on January 9, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant to a four year term. Defendant was ordered to pay a restitution fine of $200 (1202.4) and a parole revocation restitution fine of $200. (1202.45.) Defendant received a total presentence custody credit of 498 days consisting of 332 days of actual custody plus 166 days of conduct credit. Defendant obtained a probable cause certificate and appealed the conviction.

Michael Irving (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of stalking (Pen. Code, 646.9, subd. (b))[1], first degree burglary ( 459), contempt of court (166, subd. (c)(4)), misdemeanor battery on a former cohabitant ( 243, subd. (e)(1)), and cutting a utility line ( 591). The trial court sentenced appellant to 13 years in state prison. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal. The following facts were adduced at trial: Appellant and Christine Hazely had been in a romantic relationship for many years. During this time, they had three children together. Sometime in 2002 or 2003, the relationship ended and appellant moved out of their home. After the relationship ended, appellant was physically abusive toward Hazely on several occasions. In 2007, Hazely obtained a restraining order against appellant. Notwithstanding the protective order, there were times when Hazely would allow appellant to enter her home to visit with their children.

Lisa Kathleen Nix appeals a judgment revoking a grant of probation and sentencing her to a three year prison term. Court strike the $800 restitution fines and reverse and remand for a probation violation hearing.

This is an action by plaintiffs Allen Davis (Davis) and two of the companies he founded against his adult children and their spouses for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendants alleged wrongful transfer of the assets and stock of certain companies to themselves. The trial court denied defendants special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16) on the ground that the action was not based on acts in furtherance of defendants rights of petition or free speech, notwithstanding allegations in the complaint that defendants made false allegations about Davis in a prior conservatorship proceeding involving Daviss wife, now deceased. Court affirm the order because the trial court correctly determined that the gravamen or principal thrust of the action was not activity protected by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

Appellant Julian Torres was charged by information with one count of possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) and one count of transportation and offer to sell cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)). The information alleged that Appellant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction for purposes of the Three Strikes sentencing provisions, Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). Following no contest pleas to both counts, Appellant was sentenced to a term of three years, doubled under the Three Strikes law to six years, on Count 2, and a concurrent term of three years doubled to six years on Count 1. On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike his prior conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). Court affirm.

Appellant John Matthew Naglich was charged with attempted murder (count 1), corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant, with a prior conviction for that offense (count 2), criminal threats (count 3), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, under circumstances involving domestic violence (count 4). Those four counts included an allegation of personal infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (e); the section 12022.7(e) allegation). They all involved an incident on August 10, 2008, and the same victim, Kathy H. A fifth count alleged willful disobedience of a protective order, between August 25, 2008, and September 10, 2008. According to the probation report, appellant choked Kathy H. and twisted her neck, while he was cohabiting with her. He thereafter violated a court order by writing letters to her. The judgment is affirmed.

P.B. (mother) is the mother of three young children who have come under the jurisdiction of the dependency court. Court consider mothers Petition for Extraordinary Relief under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (petition), in which she challenges orders made by the trial court at a July 29, 2009 hearing regarding her three children, D.D., T.S., and Baby Girl. As explained below, Court deny the petition.

In this medical malpractice suit, plaintiff and appellant Robert Brown appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Stephen Scott, M.D., after a jury found that Scott was not negligent in his diagnosis and treatment of Brown. All of Browns assignments of error are challenges to the correctness of the trial courts evidentiary rulings. However, because Browns briefing violates the California Rules of Court in major respects and, in any event, is inadequate to support any of his claims of error, Court shall affirm in summary fashion.

Plaintiff Renee Odette Lancaster, formerly employed by defendants as a deputy sheriff, claimed defendants violated her rights under the state Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBR) (Gov. Code, 3300 et seq.) when they conducted an in-house investigation that resulted in a report that allegedly contained incriminating information against her but which they would not let her review and rebut, and which she asserts ultimately led to her termination. The trial court sustained the defendants demurrer and entered judgment against plaintiff primarily on the basis of collateral estoppel; that issues essential to plaintiffs claim had previously been decided against her in a federal action she had filed against the same parties. The trial court also awarded attorney fees to defendants as allowed under the POBR.
Plaintiff appeals, claiming the trial court erred in both sustaining the demurrer and granting attorney fees. Regarding the demurrer, she asserts the court failed to specify its reasoning in its order as required by statute, and it erred by relying on collateral estoppel. As to the attorney fee motion, plaintiff argues the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees, and that the court erred by awarding fees against both of plaintiffs attorneys of record. Plaintiffs attorneys also appeal the award of attorney fees. We affirm the trial courts decisions.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Defendant Richard Maurice Anderson, Jr. and codefendant Mark E. Kennedy were charged in a series of robberies. The preliminary hearing showed that on November 3, 2007, January 4, 2008, and March 13, 2008, defendant, using a gun, robbed or attempted to rob a total of five people who responded to an ad on Craigslist to buy a Buick. Defendant told the police he used a fake gun, and was sorry for what he did, and although a real gun was used in one robbery, another person used that gun. The judgment is affirmed

In December 2007 a jury convicted Derek K. Ancrum of five counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,[1] 211) and one count of attempted robbery ( 664, 211). The jury found true the allegations Ancrum personally used a firearm during the commission of two of the robberies ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). Ancrum admitted two prior strike and serious felony convictions ( 667.5, 667, 1170.12), and two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (a)). The court sentenced Ancrum to an indeterminate term of 150 years to life, plus a determinate term of 28 years. On appeal, Ancrum asserts the judgment must be reversed because a juror engaged in misconduct by (1) engaging in a conversation with a witness during trial; and (2) making a comment to fellow jurors while testimony was being given. Court affirm.

National Continental Insurance Company (NCIC) paid certain attorney fees incurred to defend Campbell Industries (Campbell) in an underlying lawsuit against Campbell. Campbell was insured under insurance policies issued by NCIC and under insurance policies issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (National Union). In this action, NCIC sought equitable contribution from National Union for a portion of the attorney fees paid by NCIC, and the court entered judgment that National Union pay NCIC 50 percent of certain attorney fees incurred by Campbell in the underlying lawsuit together with prejudgment interest. National Union appeals that judgment.