CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Aleyamma John (John), in propria persona, appeals a judgment denying her petition for writ of administrative mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5.)[1] The petition sought to overturn a decision by defendant and respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (the District) suspending John for three days without pay for discourteous treatment of her supervisor. Court perceive no error in the trial courts decision upholding the Districts decision and affirm the judgment.

Eileen Gray appeals from an order dismissing her petition for writ of mandate for failure to serve and file the summons as required by Government Code section 66499.37. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Rydan Shon appeals a judgment dismissing his tort/personal injury action against defendant Mercury Casualty Company (Mercury) following the sustaining of Mercury's demurrer to his first amended complaint without leave to amend. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer because Shon's complaint was ambiguous and did not state a cause of action against Mercury. Court affirm.

Francisco Rosales appeals a judgment after his conviction of corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) with findings that he used a deadly weapon and personally inflicted great bodily injury. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.7, subd. (e).) We conclude that: 1) the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of Rosaless prior convictions to be used as impeachment evidence, and 2) Rosales has not shown prosecutorial misconduct. Court affirm.

K.A. appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights and finding her children adoptable. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.)[1] She contends the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial parent relationship exception ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) applicable to the termination of parental rights and in failing to properly apply the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). Court affirm.

Objector and appellant Sam Karawia appeals from an order imposing sanctions against him in the amount of $6,000 payable to plaintiff and respondent Uneeda Enterprises doing business as Brag Sales, Inc. (Brag). The trial court imposed sanctions in connection with its granting Brags motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and further production of documents. Appellant contends that sanctions should not have been imposed because he offered substantial justification for refusing to produce the requested discovery and, alternatively, argues that the sanctions amount is excessive. Court affirm.

Bryant K. Valentine (appellant) appeals from the judgment following his plea of no contest to offering to sell narcotics (cocaine base), a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced appellant to the high term of five years. The trial court struck the allegations that appellant had suffered a prior conviction of a serious felony and a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b).) The appeal is dismissed.

Appellant Lorain R*** and respondent Thomas Eaton entered into an agreed order in the State of Illinois for the support and custody of their daughter M**. A year and a half later, after relocating to California, R** petitioned a California trial court for a modification of support according to California guidelines and requested that Eaton obtain health insurance for M**. Following a two-day trial, the trial court entered a new order for child support, child care expenses, and medical insurance. The order was subsequently modified. Proceeding in propria persona, R** appeals, arguing the trial courts modified order includes clerical errors, fails to conform to the statement of decision, and runs afoul of the Family Code. Court shall affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Frederick Deshawn Dew of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Pen. Code, 269, subd. (a)(4)),[1]forcible lewd acts with a child under the age of 14 ( 288, subd. (b)(1)), attempted forcible lewd acts with a child under the age of 14 ( 664, 288, subd. (b)(1)), and committing lewd or lascivious acts on a child ( 288, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to 22 years to life in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, prior acts of sexual misconduct were erroneously admitted, and cumulative error warrants reversal. Court affirm.

Defendant Donald Eugene Rhinehart entered into a negotiatedsettlement whereby he pleaded no contest to possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1)) and admitted a prior strike conviction in exchange for a state prison sentence of four years. Defendant waived his right to a probation report and was immediately sentenced to prison for four years. The court imposed restitution fines of $200 in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45. The judgment is affirmed.

T.M. (appellant), the mother of T.F. and Th.F. (the minors), appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. She contends that notice of the proceedings was not provided in accordance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Court affirm the judgment.

E.G. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court after admitting allegations he committed vandalism. Thereafter, the juvenile court conducted hearings in E.G.'s absence in which it ordered him to pay $791.61 in restitution jointly and severally with his parents. On appeal, E.G. contends he was entitled to a hearing on the amount of victim restitution under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 and was denied his state and federal due process rights when the contested hearing took place in his absence. E.G. also contends the juvenile court's imposition of a restitution order in excess of $400, the amount of damage he assertedly admitted causing, violated the principles of Apprendi v. New Jersey(2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi)and Blakely v. Washington(2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). E.G. has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus repeating these allegations, and asserting his counsel provided constitutionally ineffective representation. The order is affirmed.

A jury found Michael Lee Lamb guilty of two counts of burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1](counts 1 and 2). In addition, with respect to each count, the jury found that the burglary was of an inhabited dwelling. ( 460.) After the jury returned its verdicts on the burglary charges, Lamb waived his right to a jury, and admitted having suffered various prior convictions. The trial court sentenced Lamb to a total term of 60 years in prison, consisting of two consecutive terms of 25-years-to-life on counts 1 and 2, pursuant to the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12), and two consecutive five-year terms for two prior serious felony enhancements ( 667, subd. (a)(1), 668).
On appeal, Lamb claims that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense by limiting a defense expert witness's testimony regarding Lamb's use of alcohol near the time of the charged offenses. Lamb also claims that the trial court erred in modifying a jury instruction concerning voluntary intoxication. Court affirm the judgment.

AVAAK, Inc. (AVAAK) and its Chief Executive Officer, Gioia Messinger (Messinger) (collectively appellants), appeal from an order denying a special motion to strike an action as a "SLAPP" (strategic lawsuits against public participation) suit under the anti-SLAPP statute, the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Court affirm.