CA Unpub Decisions

Glen S. and Lisa S., parents of now two-year-old K.S., each appeal from the juvenile courts order terminating family reunification services. They contend this was error because Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) did not provide them with reasonable reunification services. Court agree and reverse the order.

E.C., mother of K.M., seeks writ relief from the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a permanent plan selection hearing (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450), contending the juvenile court used the wrong statutory criteria in making its determination. Court agree with the mothers contentions and find the juvenile court must conduct a new hearing. Accordingly, Court grant the petition.

Pedro Flores Gomez appeals from a judgment following a jury trial resulting in his conviction of robbery, making criminal threats, and solicitation to commit a crime. On appeal, he contends that the conviction of solicitation was not supported by substantial evidence. Alternatively, he argues that the court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury on the elements of this count and by failing to give a unanimity instruction for the solicitation and the criminal threat counts. Finally, appellant contends that the punishment for making a criminal threat must be stayed under Penal Code section 654. Court find prejudicial error in the solicitation instructions. Court therefore must reverse the judgment and remand for possible retrial on that count.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Elaine Francis Conrad died, survived by two sons, Rick and Joseph, who were equal beneficiaries under her will. Rick appeals portions of the judgment settling first and final account and order for final distribution. Court affirm.

Ralph Rogari, as Trustee for the RR Profit Sharing Trust, appeals from the trial courts denial of his petition for writ of mandate. Rogari sought a writ requiring the County of Los Angeles to issue him a permit for a private waste disposal system (septic permit) for the Trusts undeveloped real property at 2854 Seabreeze Drive in Malibu (Trust property). The Trust property is adjacent to 2850 Seabreeze Drive, a property owned by Rogari and his wife (Rogari property). The court found Rogari was not entitled to the septic permit, and the County had no ministerial duty to issue it, principally because a proposed structure on the Trust property would encroach on an area reserved for future seepage pits for a septic system approved in 1989 for the Rogari property. Rogari also appeals from the trial courts dismissal of his other two causes of action inverse condemnation and civil rights violations after the Countys demurrers to those causes of action were sustained. Court affirm the judgment.

The purchaser of real property sued after discovering that rehabilitation work done on the house was defective. The purchaser was compelled to redo the plumbing, waterproofing and tiling, which was installed without permits by contractors who were not licensed to perform the work. The sellers did not disclose the absence of permits or the defective construction in their real estate disclosure statement.
After the trial court nonsuited the plaintiff on her negligence claim, and refused her proposed instruction on negligent misrepresentation, the jury found for the sellers on plaintiffs claims of concealment, breach of contract, and failure to make statutory disclosures. Court reverse the judgment. The trial court erred by granting nonsuit and by refusing to give an instruction on negligent misrepresentation. Further, the verdict is infected by defense counsels improper and prejudicial arguments to the jury.

Defendant Marcella Doran (Doran) appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiffs August and Linda Phillips (the Phillipses), and the Phillipses cross-appeal from the same judgment. Doran challenges the trial courts determination that the Phillipses had an irrevocable license on an approximately three-foot area on Dorans side of her boundary line. The Phillipses challenge the trial courts decision not to allow them to reopen the case to insert a legal description for the disputed area. Court affirm the judgment.

Dale Bernhard appeals his conviction of vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence under Penal Code section 192, subdivision (c)(2). Appellant contends: (1) the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation and abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 780 when it restricted the cross-examination of a witness; (2) the court erred when it failed to modify the CALJIC instruction pertaining to the charge; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. As we shall explain, appellants claims do not warrant a reversal. First, appellant failed to preserve his Sixth Amendment claim in the trial court and has not demonstrated prejudicial error under state law. Second, appellant has not shown the CALJIC instructions failed to convey the proper elements of Penal Code section 192, subdivision (c)(2). Finally, appellants conviction was amply supported by eyewitness accounts of the accident and physical evidence. Consequently, Court affirm.

M.C. (father) appeals the juvenile courts orders (1) granting mother full physical and legal custody of their 15-year-old son A.C., (2) denying father visitation and (3) terminating jurisdiction, thereby consigning further custody proceedings to family court.[1] Father contends he did not receive reasonable reunification services as ordered by the court, his efforts at monitored visitation and conjoint therapy with his son were subverted primarily by mother, and no substantial evidence supports the courts issuing of a restraining order or orders regarding custody and visitation. Court affirm.

Defendant Shawn Jackson timely appealed his conviction on count one and count three of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder, in violation of Penal Code section[1] 664/187, subdivision (a) and count five of shooting at an inhabited dwelling, in violation of Penal Code section 246. As to each count, the jury found true the special allegations that the defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang. As to count one, the court imposed a term of 15 years to life plus 20 years pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (c). As to count three, the court imposed a term of 15 years to life plus 20 years pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (c). The court set the sentence on count three to run consecutively to count one. Finally, as to count five the court imposed a term of 15 years to life, set to run concurrently with counts one and three. Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the gang allegations, specifically the primary activities element of a criminal street gang. Court affirm.

Following his conviction of a drug-related offense, Berry appeals from the judgment, contending the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to hear his motion to suppress evidence as untimely. Court affirm.

Defendant Dennis Ray Clay appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of assault with intent to commit a felony (Pen. Code, 220)[1]and making a criminal threat ( 422) and found true the allegation he personally used a handgun in the commission of the assault ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court found true the allegation defendant suffered a prior conviction for which he served a prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of 6 years in state prison for the assault and a consecutive term of 10 years for the handgun use. It imposed concurrent 1-year terms for the criminal threat and the prior prison term. On appeal, defendant challenges the handgun use enhancement and the sentence imposed. Court modify the sentence and affirm.