CA Unpub Decisions

Courtney K. (father) challenges a Family Code section 7822[1] judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, Hayden P. (the minor). Although father concedes that the requirements of section 7822 were met, he argues that the court nonetheless abused its discretion in entering the judgment because it was not in the best interests of the minor to do so. Father says his parental rights were terminated in order to permit Jeffrey A. (stepfather), the minors stepfather, to adopt him. However, father insists that stepfather would be an inappropriate parent, given his history of criminal activity and alcohol abuse, and that it would not be in the best interests of the minor to be adopted by stepfather. Court affirm.

Defendant Albert Sanchez was charged by information with resisting an officer (Pen. Code, 69, a felony, count 1), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a), a felony, count 2), displaying false registration (Veh. Code, 4462.5, a misdemeanor, count 3), and battery upon an officer (Pen. Code, 242, 243, subd. (b), a misdemeanor, count 4). In his first trial, a jury found defendant guilty of counts 1 and 2, not guilty of count 3, and guilty of the lesser included offense of battery upon an officer without injury (id. 243, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to three years and eight months in prison. This court reversed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Sanchez (Jun. 12, 2007) H029254 [nonpub. opn.].) By the time his conviction was reversed, defendant had served his sentence and had been released from custody.

Defendant Timothy Grauer Marshall appeals an order sentencing him to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) after he was found to have violated his probation. He contends the court failed to exercise its judicial authority in refusing to reinstate him on probation. Alternatively, he argues the refusal to reinstate him on probation was an abuse of discretion. Court conclude the former claim is waived and reject the latter claim on the merits.

Jiri Novotny appeals from a probate court order granting Gerhard Weilandts petition to determine the construction of The Watson Living Trust (the trust), concluding that Novotny is not entitled to receive any distribution from the trust. Court agree that the trial courts construction is inconsistent with the terms of the trust instrument and, therefore, shall reverse the order.

Appellant D.A. appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellants counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel declares that appellant has been notified that no issues are being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead is being requested. Appellant has also been advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally. The judgment is affirmed.

James Manuel Noriega appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of the first degree murders of Kathleen Martinez and Savannah Zamora and the second degree murder of Martinez's fetus. (Pen. Code, 189/187, subd. (a).) The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that appellant committed multiple murders, and the allegation that he personally inflicted injury that resulted in termination of a pregnancy. (Pen. Code, 190.2, subd. (a)(3) & 12022.9.) The trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life in state prison on the second degree murder count, plus consecutives sentences of life without the possibility of parole on each of the first degree murder counts.[1] Appellant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error when it (1) failed to recuse his trial attorney for conflicts of interest; (2) admitted unreliable eyewitness identification testimony; (3) denied his Wheeler/Batson motions (Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79; People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258); (4) limited cross-examination and excluded impeachment evidence; (5) excluded his "emotional reaction" to the murders; and (6) excluded third party culpability evidence. He also alleges cumulative error. Court affirm.

In our prior opinion filed May 2, 2007, we remanded the case as to appellant Rodrigo R. Rizo for re-sentencing on counts 1 and 2 in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Our Supreme Court granted review. On September 12, 2008, it transferred the matter to this court with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Towne (2008) 44 Cal.4th 63. As directed, we have reconsidered the matter. Court issue a new opinion and affirm.

This case concerns a discovery dispute that arose in the context of conservatorship proceedings for Cordell Jenkins. Cordells son, plaintiff and appellant T.L. Jenkins (appellant), appeals from an order imposing nonmonetary discovery sanctions upon him for violation of a prior discovery order. Finding no prejudicial error, Court affirm.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory relief. The trial court initiated a motion for judgment on the pleadings (JOP) on its own accord, granted its sua sponte motion, and denied declaratory relief. Plaintiff appeals. Court reverse.

Plaintiff and appellant Belinda Bickelman (plaintiff) received by facsimile transmission an unsolicited announcement on her home business facsimile machine. In response, she filed a class actionon behalf of herself and all others who received the unsolicited facsimile announcementagainst the drafters of the announcement, defendants and respondents Assil Sinskey Eye Institute (Eye Institute), Kerry K. Assil, M.D., Inc., and Kerry K. Assil (Dr. Assil). The complaint was based on, inter alia, an alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the Act).
On appeal from the order denying her class certification motion, plaintiff raises a number of issues relating to the trial courts denial of her class certification motion and her motion to compel compliance with the business records subpoena served on Global Crossing. We hold that (i) the trial court applied the correct legal criteria in determining whether the requisite community of interest existed; (ii) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common issues did not predominate; and (iii) even if the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs motion to compel compliance with the business records subpoena, any such error was harmless. Court therefore affirm the orders denying plaintiffs class certification motion and the motion to compel compliance with the business records subpoena. The trial courts orders denying plaintiffs class certification motion and motion to compel compliance with the business records subpoena are affirmed.

Defendant, Iisaa Hakimbey, appeals from his conviction for deadly weapon assault. (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant argues the prosecutors exercise of a peremptory challenge violated his federal and state constitutional rights and the trial court improperly excluded evidence of a witnesss prior arrests. Court affirm.

On appeal from a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, defendant and appellant Paul K. Bryan contends the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of defendants prior encounters with the victim. Court affirm.

Brian D. Witzer appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of John Curlander in this action arising out of an option to purchase a home Witzer was leasing from Curlander. Court affirm.

Kenneth Kropfl, appearing in propria persona in this court as he did in the trial court, appeals from the order dismissing his lawsuit after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of the County of Los Angeles (County) to his complaint. Court affirm.