CA Unpub Decisions

Edgar J. appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights over his son Christian A. Edgar contends the juvenile court violated his due process rights by failing to provide him notice as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 316.2, subdivision (b) and California Rules of Court, rule 5.635(g); abused its discretion by denying his section 388 petitions; erred by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)); and failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). Court affirm.

Orion Felix Li was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (a)(1)) with personal use of a deadly weapon ( 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)) and misdemeanor battery ( 242). The court suspended criminal proceedings and ordered a mental competency examination and hearing ( 1368 et seq.). At the hearing, the court received into evidence a report from the examining psychiatrist. The court concluded that Li was not mentally competent to stand trial and ordered him committed to Patton State Hospital for a maximum term of three years. Li appeals. Court affirm.

Thirteen-year-old Fernando S. entered a negotiated admission to one count of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). The juvenile court declared Fernando a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) and ordered that he be placed in a 24-hour school. Ten days after he was placed at the school, Fernando left without permission. After Fernando agreed to return to the 24 hour school and complete the program, the court ordered that he be returned to the school.

Defendant, Maurice Leonard Alberti, was charged with three felony counts: (1) possession of a firearm by a felon (count 1), (2) possession of armor-piercing ammunition (count 2), and (3) actively participating in a criminal street gang, namely, Four Corner Hustler Crips (FCHC) (count 3). It was alleged that counts 1 and 2 were committed for the benefit of FCHC. The jury found defendant guilty on all counts and also found the gang allegations true. Defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Timothy Michael Willard challenges the restitution (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)) and parole revocation restitution ( 1202.45) fines imposed by the trial court at his probation revocation hearing. Court affirm.

J.M. (hereinafter also defendant) appeals from a judgment entered against him asserting that (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering that he enter foster care that might place him outside of his own community, and (2) the juvenile court failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 United States Code, section 1901 et seq. and related California legislation (ICWA). Specifically, he argues that Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.3[1]required the juvenile court to inquire whether he has any Indian heritage and its failure to do so requires reversal. We find that J.M.s first argument is not ripe for consideration on the record before us and decline to reverse the judgment on that ground. And, because the question has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal, we decline to consider whether the juvenile court was required to comply with the ICWA. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

J.P. (father) appeals as error (1) the juvenile courts denial of his request for a continuance of the permanency planning hearing regarding his two children, (2) the denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions, and (3) the courts failure to make a specific visitation order. Court affirm.

T.B. is the mother of two girls, B.B. (age five) and M.B. (age four), and a boy, F.B. (age two). The juvenile court terminated parental rights to the children and ordered them placed for adoption pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1] Mother appeals, claiming insufficient evidence supports the courts finding that the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. More specifically, mother challenged the adoptability finding based on evidence that the children suffered from multiple disabilities as a result of intrauterine exposure to drugs and alcohol. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the adoptability determinations. Court therefore affirm the orders terminating parental rights and placing the children for adoption.

This is the sixth appeal arising out of the underlying lawsuit, Sole Energy Company v. Petrominerals Corporation, Orange County Superior Court case No. 00CC06333. The issue in this appeal is whether the judgment that resulted from Sole Energy III and Sole Energy V bars the claims of Sole Energy Company[2] against Petrominerals Corporation (Petrominerals) under principles of res judicata or claim preclusion. The trial court also granted Petrominerals motion for judgment on the pleadings on Sole Energy Corporations fraud cause of action. Sole Energy Corporation does not challenge that ruling on appeal. Court therefore affirm the judgment in favor of Petrominerals on Sole Energy Corporations fraud cause of action, but otherwise reverse the judgment and remand.

This is the seventh appeal arising out of the underlying lawsuit, Sole Energy Company v. Petrominerals Corporation, Orange County Superior Court case No. 00CC06333. In this appeal, appellants challenge the judgment entered after the trial court granted defendants motion for summary judgment.
As appellants, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving error, and that burden includes the obligation to present argument and legal authority on each point raised. (E.g., In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133-1134; Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 367‑368.) Court conclude Plaintiffs did not meet their burden as appellants on the issues of causation and damages; on that ground alone, Court affirm.

This appeal does not challenge the judgment; rather, it argues the sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment do not accurately reflect the trial courts oral pronouncement and therefore must be corrected. The Attorney General concedes the point, and Court agree.

Eight years ago, Lynn Jansen and Cindy Jansen sued Brent Tucker, Tuckers company T.A. Tucker Associates, Inc. (TATA), and their attorney Dennis Kahane. The lawsuit arose out of a dispute regarding a development project. Kahane ultimately prevailed in the litigation on all of the Jansens claims. Kahane then brought this action for malicious prosecution against the Jansens and all of their attorneys. Defendants filed special motions to strike, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which were granted. Kahane appeals the granting of the motions and the dismissal of his complaint.
According to Kahane, the Jansens unsuccessful lawsuit against him destroyed his law practice and resulted in the loss of many thousands of dollars in fees. He seeks compensation for those damages. Court are not unsympathetic to the devastation that can result from legal claims alleging malpractice, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against an attorney, even where those allegations are never proven. But our sympathies must end where the law begins. Based upon our thorough review of the record presented, we discern no error in the trial courts granting of the special motions to strike; and accordingly, we must affirm the judgment.

On February 16, 2006, the Board of Prison Terms (Board) found Peter George Cooper suitable for release on parole. Cooper had entered prison on July 16, 1987; he was serving an indeterminate prison term of 16 years to life for his conviction of second degree murder with use of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 187, 12022, subdivision (b)). Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reversed the Boards grant of parole, finding that the commitment offense was particularly heinous, leading him to conclude that Coopers present release posed an unreasonable public safety risk.
A petition for review was filed in the Supreme Court, which the court granted on October 24, 2007. The Supreme Court subsequently transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our decision and to reconsider the cause in light of In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Lawrence) and In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Shaputis). We hereby vacate our prior opinion and review this case in the context of Lawrence and Shaputis. Court again conclude that some evidence did not support the Governors decision to reverse the Boards grant of parole. Accordingly, Court grant Coopers petition for habeas corpus relief and reinstate the Boards grant of parole.

Ahmed Ali Hassan, also know as Ahmed Aly Abdel Azim Hassan, Ahmed Ali Abdel-Azim Ibrahim Hassan, Ahmed Aly and Ahmed Aly Hassan Abdel Azim, appeals from the judgment[1]entered upon his convictions in a court trial of offering a false or forged instrument for recording (Pen. Code, 115, subd. (a), count 1)[2]and offering false evidence ( 132, count 2). The trial court sentenced him to the middle term of two years on count 1, staying execution of sentence and placing him on three years probation on condition he serve one year in county jail. On count 2, it suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years probation. Appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence (1) he violated section 115, and (2) he violated section 132.
Court reverse the conviction of count 2 and otherwise affirm.