CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Appellant Anthony Williams appeals from the trial courts order finding him in violation of his probation and imposing a three-year suspended prison sentence. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion and denied his due process and equal protection rights when it found him in violation of his probation and imposed the suspended prison sentence without considering alternative forms of punishment. Court reverse and remand.
|
|
T.G. appeals from an order of the juvenile court denying him presumed father status in the dependency proceedings regarding T.G, Jr. He contends the juvenile court erred in awarding presumed father status instead to H.W., the childs biological father, because T.G. had signed a voluntary declaration of paternity when the child was born, thus conclusively establishing T.G.s paternity, and there was no basis upon which to set aside the voluntary declaration, which operated as a judgment of paternity. Court disagree and affirm the courts order granting presumed father status to H.W.
|
|
This appeal arises out of proceedings concerning the Aubry Family Trust (the trust). Defendant, Justin Ringgold-Lockhart, purports to appeal from two orders. The first appeal is from an October 17, 2007 order authorizing the sale of trust real property to a third party. The second appeal is from an October 25, 2007 order granting relief from a stay on appeal (Prob. Code, 1310) to permit the escrow to close. Court conclude defendant has no standing to appeal. Accordingly, Court dismiss the appeal.
|
|
David John Napolitano pled guilty to two counts of forgery (Pen. Code, 475, subd. (b) & 484e, subd. (d));[1]one count of grant theft ( 484e, subd. (b)); and one count of possession of stolen property ( 496). The plea was pursuant to a plea bargain in which other counts were dismissed. Napolitano challenges the restitution order. Court affirm.
|
|
From a summary judgment in favor of respondent, appellants Robin Baker and Jeffrey Phillip Hanzel appeal contending the trial court improperly weighed the evidence in reaching its decision. Respondent contends the uncontroverted facts established that he did not cause the claimed injury. Court find there is no triable issue of material fact as to causation and affirm the judgment.
|
|
A jury convicted appellant of one count of possession for sale of cocaine base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation under terms and conditions that included serving 365 days in county jail. Appellant appeals on the ground that the trial courts failure to instruct on the lesser included offense of simple possession of cocaine base was prejudicial error.
|
|
Cross-complainant Wilson Fong appeals from the order granting the special motions of cross-defendants Mie Sheung Quan (Mie) and Elton Quan (Elton) to strike the emotional distress cause of action of Fongs cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16.) Fong contends the Quans conduct was criminal extortion as a matter of law and not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Court conclude the alleged conduct was privileged and affirm.
|
|
Respondent voluntarily dismissed a cross-complaint after appellant filed a special motion to strike the cross-complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). (Code of Civ. Proc., 425.16 et seq.) The court granted appellant statutory attorney fees and costs under section 425.16, subdivision (c)[2]but awarded fees and costs in a reduced amount. Appellant appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion in reducing his claimed fees and costs. Court affirm.
|
|
Appellant Marshall L. Kadner, M.D., appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of respondents Ruth F. Cousineau, M.D., and Robert F. Katz, M.D. Appellant contends the judgment must be reversed, in that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and the judgment cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the arbitration award. He also contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. Court affirm.
|
|
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Jose J. Osorio (defendant) of two counts of lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a))[1](counts 1 and 2) and two counts of child molestation ( 647.6, subd. (a)) (counts 3 and 4). Defendants sole argument on appeal is that the sex offender fine imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 290.3 should have been $200 rather than $300. Because the offense of which defendant was convicted on count 4 occurred subsequent to the effective date of legislation raising the amount of the sex offender fine to $300, the amount of the fine was proper. Court therefore affirm.
|
|
Defendant Bobby Gonzalez appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of sale of a controlled substance (cocaine base) (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a); count 1) and possession for sale of cocaine base (id., 11351.5; count 2), and the trial court found true the allegation defendant had been previously convicted of a drug-related offense (id., 11370.2, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 14 years: the upper five-year term on count 2, plus nine years for the three drug-related enhancements, and a concurrent term of four years on count 1. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to stay sentence on count 1 pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.
|
|
T.A. and J.F., the mother and father of minor A.F., appeal from the order terminating their parental rights after a Welfare and Institutions Code section[1] 366.26 hearing. Appellants contend[2] that substantial evidence did not support the order because mother met the continuing beneficial relationship exception contained in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i)[3] and that the court erroneously terminated their parental rights because proper notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) had not been perfected. Although mother did not meet the continuing beneficial relationship exception, Court reverse and remand with directions solely to ensure compliance with ICWA.
|
|
Wayne Dean Wright appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)). In exchange for his plea, four other counts of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 with allegations of substantial sexual contact (Pen. Code, 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) were dismissed. He was sentenced to the midterm of six years in state prison.
The judgment is affirmed. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
