CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Jeanne Michelle Suarez brought this action against her cousins to quiet title in a family home formerly owned by their grandparents. The trial court found Michelle[1]failed to establish she had obtained sole title to the house by adverse possession. Court agree and shall affirm the judgment.

Neighboring landowners plaintiff Marilyn Lynch and defendant John Hertzig make a return appearance before us in a dispute over the boundary line between their properties. Lynch filed a claim to establish boundary and quiet title, arguing the disputed boundary line between the Lynch and Hertzig properties had changed since a prior trial in 1992. The trial court disagreed, finding the judgment entered in the prior action dispositive, since Lynch had introduced no new evidence on the matter. Lynch filed a new trial motion, which the court denied. Lynch appeals, arguing the decision in the 1992 trial was not res judicata as to the boundary between the properties. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Lorenzo Reyes of theft of a firearm (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (d)), and defendant was placed on formal probation for four years. The trial court imposed numerous conditions of probation, including a requirement that he not . . . remain in any building or vehicle where any person has such a weapon, nor remain in the presence of any unlawfully armed person[.] The challenged portion of the probation condition imposed on defendant here relates both to the places where he is allowed as well as with whom he can associate. Court find the condition imposed is similar for constitutional purposes to that of Sheena K., and Court insert the knowledge requirement.

Plaintiff Cletius Rogers has no access to his 26-acre parcel of land in Yuba County as a result of the summary judgment granted defendant Regents of the University of California (University) based on the Universitys defense of laches to a declaratory relief action to establish an easement. The trial court found plaintiffs 26-year delay in reinstituting litigation to assert his right to use a road traversing University property for ingress and egress was unreasonable and, as a result, the University suffered prejudice because potential knowledgeable witnesses had died and the University was forced to defend the action at public expense for a second time. Our review is de novo. (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 67-68 (Johnson).)
We are confronted with two questions. Is laches a possible defense to the establishment of an easement? If so, did plaintiffs delay in filing his complaint constitute laches as a matter of law? Although we reject plaintiffs inflexible notion that laches can never be a defense to the establishment of an easement that arises by operation of law, Court conclude the University did not establish the requisite prejudice to sustain a finding of laches. Court also reject a new theory raised by the University for the first time on appeal. Court reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Appellants Danielle R. (father) and Rachel R. (mother) appeal from the juvenile courts order denying mothers petition for modification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388, 395; undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) They contend the juvenile court erred in denying mothers petition for modification without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Court affirm.

A jury found defendant Antoine Laneir Slaughter guilty of crimes and enhancements arising out of a brutal attack on his former live-in girlfriend that lasted approximately 19 hours. Specifically, the jury found him guilty of: (1) torture; (2) rape by force or fear; (3) corporal injury to a former cohabitant; (4) dissuading a witness by force or threat; (5) false imprisonment by violence; and (6) obstructing or delaying a peace officer. The jury also found that defendant: (1) personally used three dangerous or deadly weapons (a bat, bed rail, and vacuum) during the commission of the torture, rape, corporal injury, witness dissuasion, and false imprisonment; (2) personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the rape; and (3) inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence in the commission of the rape, corporal injury, witness dissuasion, and false imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the jurys findings that he used the weapons and inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the rape, witness dissuasion, and false imprisonment; and (2) the court erred in the sentence it imposed. Disagreeing with these contentions, Court affirm the judgment.

Eugene P. (appellant), the father of J.P. and M.P. (the minors), appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating his reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 395; further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Appellant claims he did not receive adequate notice of the review hearing at which his services were terminated and that the juvenile court erred by terminating his services. He also contends that notice was insufficient under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) Concluding none of these contentions are meritorious, Court shall affirm.

Defendant Kenneth Paul Winston appeals from the sentence imposed following his plea of no contest to first degree residential robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and his admissions of personal use of an Uzi assault machine gun ( 12022.5, subd. (b)) and having sustained a prior juvenile adjudication. Defendant argues the court erred in using his prior juvenile adjudication as a strike and that the court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion. Court affirm.

Defendant Demetrius Gater appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence. A jury convicted Gater of murder, two counts of attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and carrying a loaded firearm, based on four separate incidents. The trial court sentenced Gater to 75 years to life plus an additional 20 years. With regard to the issue of the application of section 654 to the firearm and gang enhancements, we conclude that the trial court did not err in imposing both the firearm enhancement and the 10-year gang enhancement related to the charge of assault with a firearm, without staying the gang enhancement. Consequently, Court affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

Robert L. appeals an order granting joinder of the mother's sister, Janet C. and her husband, and determining child custody and visitation issues. Court affirm the order.

Sharon G. appeals the denial of her postpermanency planning Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. Sharon G.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

L.H. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) Court therefore deny her requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)

A modification decision.

Defendant David Briano and his nephew Anthony Angelo Romero (Romero)[1]assaulted Arthur Martinez (Martinez/victim) by kicking him and stomping on his head. Defendant was wearing steel-toed boots at the time of the assault. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the offense and the enhancement, (2) CALCRIM No. 3160 was an erroneous jury instruction, (3) the police officers expert testimony regarding blood stains was inadmissible evidence, and (4) he is entitled to 50 percent good time credits. Finding no error, Court affirm the judgment.