CA Unpub Decisions

Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her three children. Court deny the petition.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter D. Court deny the petition.

In January 2007, the Garden Grove Downtown Business Association (the Petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate challenging the approval by the City of Garden Grove (the City) and the Garden Grove Agency for Community Development (the Agency) of a condominium project (the Project) to be built on an existing parking lot in the historical downtown area of the City (the Site). The petition alleged that the approval process was unlawful because: (1) the City and the Agency failed to include the Garden Grove Parking and Main Street Commission (the Parking Commission) in the decision-making process for the Project; (2) the City abused its discretion by determining that the parking lot was no longer needed for parking; and (3) the City and the Agency abused their discretion in determining that the Project would eliminate blight.

Raymond and Priscilla Felix appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award issued against them. The award required the partition and sale of a boat which the Felixes co-owned with another couple, Vince and Debbie Bitteto, and also required that the Felixes pay in excess of $50,000 in attorney fees and costs to the Bittetos. The sanctions question, however, is a close one. Although the Felixes attempt to raise entirely new contentions both factual and legal for the first time on appeal does smack of frivolousness, we are disinclined to view those contentions as distinct issues in this case. Because the boat has already been sold, it would be difficult to conclude the Felixes had anything of significance to gain in suddenly arguing about the rights of the boats mortgagee (and its alleged affect on the enforceability of the parties co-ownership agreement) other than an alternative means of attacking the rather substantial attorney fee award entered against them below. It thus appears this appeal is, as a practical matter, solely about that fee award. And when viewed as a whole, the attack on that fee award was not frivolous.

A jury convicted defendant Michael Randal Warzek of aggravated sexual assault upon a child under 14 (counts 1 and 2), lewd act upon a child 14 or 15 (count 3), lewd act upon a child under 14 by force or fear (counts 4, 5 and 6), and possession of child pornography (count 7). On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by admitting over objection the evidence of child pornography despite his offer to plead guilty to count 7, (2) the trial court erred by overruling his objection that the prosecutors cross-examination of him exceeded the scope of the direct testimony, (3) the trial court erred by overruling his objection that an attorney-client privilege barring certain testimony had been waived, and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object to the prosecutors cross examination of him that called for inadmissible and prejudicial answers. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from the judgment insofar as it reflects the denial of his motion, made before sentencing, for 122 days of parole revocation sentence credit. We conclude that defendant has shown that those 122 days were solely attributable to the same conduct that led to his conviction and sentence in this case. Under the complex legal rules that apply in such cases, Court conclude that the court erred in denying the motion and that defendant is entitled to the credit. Court direct the court to modify the abstract of judgment accordingly, and with that modification, Court affirm the judgment.

Kenneth Campbell and his mother, Leonora Campbell,[1]filed two petitions for writs of administrative mandate challenging the curtailment of Leonora's benefits under the California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal) by respondent, the State Department of Health Care Services (Department). Assuming the role of a "party beneficially interested" in the proceedings, Kenneth filed numerous documents and appeared for Leonora at various superior court hearings in the matter. The trial court ordered Kenneth to stop trying to represent Leonora, as he was not a licensed attorney and lacked standing to appear on his own behalf. The court further ruled against appellants on the merits of both petitions.

Appellants Kenneth and Leonora Campbell seek review of a ruling denying their application for a waiver of fees for the preparation of a transcript in a related appeal, H032473. Appellants argue that the court denied their application based on the erroneous belief that the court reporter was an independent contractor. Court affirm the order.

Sandra Guadalupe Romayor, the defendant herein, has a history of dangerous behavior, including dangerous driving and methamphetamine use. This case arose because she was driving recklessly, ran two red traffic signals, broadsided another vehicle, injuring the driver, and initially fled the accident scene. She was convicted of felony hit-and-run and received a short jail term and a term of probation. She appeals two of the probation conditions: that she not drink alcoholic beverages or visit liquor stores, and that she consent to warrantless searches. Court find the probation conditions valid and will affirm the judgment.

Justo Blandon appeals from the judgment following a court trial and his conviction of felony child abuse. (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a).) The court sentenced him to two years in state prison. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Court affirm.

Defendant Christina Lynn Wheeler was charged in an 11-count consolidated information that contained six counts of burglary (Pen. Code, 459),[1]two counts of assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), one count of attempted robbery ( 664, 211), one count of willful infliction of harm on a dependent elder ( 368, subd. (b)(1)), and one count of trespassing ( 602). The information also alleged enhancements based on the age of the victims, defendants use of a weapon and defendant being on bail at the time of the offenses. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury acquitted defendant Robert Gary Stirnaman of grand and petty theft but convicted him of knowing receipt of stolen property. (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a).) Defendant admitted having served three prior prison terms. (Id., 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for four years four months, and he timely filed this appeal. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court misinstructed the jury on threats against a witness; the prosecutor committed misconduct in argument; and the trial court improperly denied defendants request for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). Court shall affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of evading a peace officer, a felony, and resisting an executive officer, a misdemeanor. (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 148.) The trial court sustained two prison-term allegations. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court imposed the upper term of three years for evasion and a year for each of the prison-term allegations, for a total state prison sentence of five years; the misdemeanor charge resulted in a concurrent jail sentence. Defendant timely appealed.

Defendant Yommala Southvilay Cruz stole $125.49 in merchandise from the Baby Gap store at the Galleria Mall in Roseville. The Gaps loss prevention agent, Justin Morek, confronted defendant outside the store and asked her to explain the clothing stowed away in her black tote bag. Defendant pushed Morek and attempted to exit the mall. As Morek grabbed defendant to detain her, she threw the bag at him and punched him in the shoulder. The struggle spilled out into the parking lot, where defendant was ultimately handcuffed by mall security.
On appeal, defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the trial court erred in imposing a concurrent, rather than a stayed, sentence on her burglary conviction. As will be explained more fully below, Court accept the concession and will modify the judgment to stay defendants sentence on the burglary conviction.