CA Unpub Decisions

F.S. (father) appeals from orders terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26)[1]to his two sons. He contends the juvenile court erred in reaching its decision because there was insufficient evidence of the boys adoptability and, based on their parent/child relationship, termination would be detrimental. He also joins in arguments made by his sons mother in her separate appeal, In re T.T., et.al. (F055814), in which she also challenges the courts adoptability finding. We affirmed in mothers case, in which we rejected mothers challenges to that finding and concluded the finding is supported by substantial evidence. On review of fathers appeal, Court affirm.

T.T. (mother) appeals from orders terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26)[1]to her two sons. She contends the juvenile court erred in reaching its decision because there was insufficient evidence of the boys adoptability. She also joins in arguments made by the boys father in his separate appeal, In re T.T., et.al. (F055689), in which he challenges the courts adoptability finding and contends termination would be detrimental to the boys because he has a beneficial parent/child relationship with them. We affirmed in fathers case, concluding the courts adoptability finding is supported by substantial evidence and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining the beneficial relationship exception to adoption did not apply. On review of mothers appeal, Court affirm.

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[1]as to his daughter A. Court deny the petition.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile courts orders issued at a 12-month review hearing setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to his son W. Court dismiss the petition.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452) from the juvenile courts orders issued at a 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter G. Court dismiss the petition.

On July 17, 2008, the juvenile court terminated N.I.s parental rights to her son, A.I. In these consolidated appeals, N.I. appeals from the summary denials on May 6, June 25, and July 14 of her three separate petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, claiming each petition made a prima facie case of changed circumstances and best interests of the child and should have received a full hearing. The mother also appeals from the termination of her parental rights, claiming the juvenile court should have applied the benefit exception based on her relationship with A.I. Court affirm.

Michael Ward (appellant) brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction of drug and weapons offenses. Before trial, the superior court denied his motion to suppress the contraband found in a motel room in which he was staying. (Pen. Code, 1538.5.) The search was based on search conditions applicable to appellant as a parolee. For reasons that follow, we have determined that the officers had reasonable suspicion that the motel room and black plastic trash bag appellant was carrying were under appellant's control and thus the search was within the scope of the parole search. Accordingly, we conclude the court properly denied the suppression motion. Furthermore, with respect to appellant's other issues, we conclude that the admission at trial of evidence of his prior convictions was error, but harmless, and the imposition of consecutive sentences was proper. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Roy Hinkle Johns (appellant) was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of one count of attempted second degree robbery, with an enhancement for use of a firearm. On appeal, he contends his upper term sentence on the enhancement was imposed in violation of his constitutional right to a jury trial because he did not waive a jury trial on the aggravating facts upon which the court relied in imposing the upper term. Court shall affirm.

Demetrie L. Simmons (appellant) was convicted, following pleas of guilty and no contest, of felony possession of cocaine, misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, misdemeanor driving with a suspended license, felony failure to register as a sex offender, and misdemeanor failure to provide registration information. On appeal, he contends (1) at sentencing, the trial court failed to exercise its discretion to strike an on-bail enhancement, and (2) only one of two terms for a prior prison term enhancement was properly imposed. Court shall order that the duplicate term imposed for the prior prison term enhancement be stricken. Court otherwise affirm the judgment and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

In this case tried to the court, Access Recovery Group Inc. (Access) contends the trial court erred when it granted Pinnicks motion for nonsuit brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581c. Because the same judgment could have been entered on a motion brought pursuant to section 631.8, Court affirm. In essence, this appeal pits form against substance. Substance wins.

Kyle Brandon Adams appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found that he committed felony assault and personally inflicted great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1); 12022.7, subd. (a).) He contends the trial court erred in failing to give the jury a unanimity instruction. Court affirm the judgment.

Respondent Peter Patras commenced this action against attorneys Alexander Anolik and John Crossfield and their law firm, Alexander Anolik, a professional law corporation (collectively appellants), for malicious prosecution arising out of their participation in an underlying suit against respondent for breach of contract which eventually terminated when appellants client voluntarily dismissed it without prejudice. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16), the anti-SLAPP statute, appellants filed a special motion to strike the causes of action for malicious prosecution from the complaint herein, claiming that their participation in the filing of the underlying action is an activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, which Patras concedes, and that Patras failed to make the necessary showing of a probability he will prevail on his malicious prosecution claim. The trial court determined that Patras made that necessary showing a probability of prevailing on his claim and denied appellants special motion to strike.
Court conclude that the trial courts determination was correct and affirm the ruling.

Plaintiffs Denise Easterby and her husband appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants Dr. Stephen Clark doing business as Spring Dental Group (Spring Dental Group), Nizar Laouiti, and Dr. Christopher Deledonne in their action for dental malpractice, general negligence, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs contend the trial court committed reversible error when it excluded their experts testimony on causation at trial. Defendants Spring Dental Group and Laouiti appeal from a post judgment order granting plaintiffs motion to tax expert witness fees. Court agree the trial court committed reversible error by excluding plaintiffs expert testimony and accordingly reverse the judgment in favor of defendants and remand for further proceedings. Court further dismiss the appeal by defendants Spring Dental Group and Laouiti as moot.

A jury convicted Luis M. Martinez of firearm and ammunition possession by a felon and carrying a loaded unregistered firearm in public and found the gang enhancement allegations were true. The court erred in conducting a portion of the sentencing hearing in the absence of the defendant, his counsel, and the prosecutor; but the error does not require reversal. Court modify the sentence to stay punishment on the ammunition possession count pursuant to Penal Code section 654.