CA Unpub Decisions

Phillip Szanto appeals from the judgment entered against him in the lawsuit he brought against his father, Peter Szanto. Among other claims of wrongdoing, Phillip[1] alleged that his father had conducted various financial transactions, including the establishment of credit accounts and bank and brokerage accounts, the filing of tax returns, and the initiation of litigation, all in Phillips name and under his social security number, but without Phillips knowledge or consent. Phillip alleged he had been harmed both emotionally and financially by that misconduct, which he characterized as a cause of action for identity theft, and requested an award of damages. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on Phillips identity theft claim.

Defendant was found guilty by jury trial of one count of forcible rape, one count of forcible oral copulation, two counts of attempted forcible rape, and one count of second degree robbery in connection with an early-morning attack on a woman as she walked to catch a bus to work. Jurors also found true an allegation that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon when committing the sex offenses. Defendant was sentenced to 124 years to life. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a conviction for a prior sex offense, (2) the admission of the evidence violated his due process rights, (3) the trial courts jury instruction on sex crimes propensity evidence impermissibly diluted the prosecutions burden of proof, (4) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a pinpoint instruction on after-acquired intent in connection with the robbery charge, (5) there is insufficient evidence to support the weapon enhancement allegation, (6) the trial court inadequately responded to the jurys questions about the weapon enhancement allegation, and (7) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of consecutive sentences. Court disagree and affirm.

Lyon Financial Services, Inc. (Lyon) appeals from a judgment in its favor against Elaine Wallace following a court trial. Lyon contends the trial court erred when it awarded damages to Wallace as a setoff against Lyons recovery for Wallaces breach of a lease for a copy machine. Court agree with Lyon and reverse the setoff of damages in Wallaces favor.

Defendant Stephen Lorenz Schneider appeals his jury trial convictions on charges arising from his involvement in an altercation with correctional officers and deputy sheriffs while he was housed at the San Mateo County Jail in February 2007. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.

Defendant and appellant R.R. appeals from the juvenile courts order sustaining the charge in count 2 of a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that he violated a court order by possessing gang drawings and failing to register as a gang member. Court affirm.

Respondent Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau has moved to dismiss the parents appeals on the ground that the matter is moot. In support of its motion, respondent asks this court to take judicial notice of a subsequent order of the juvenile court terminating the dependency. B.G. and E.G. have each filed opposition to respondents motion to dismiss. B.G. asks this court to take judicial notice of her notice of appeal from the termination order. The requests for judicial notice are granted. The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeals are ordered dismissed.

The trial court sustained defendants demurrer to plaintiffs first amended complaint without leave to amend. We hold that although the demurrer was correctly sustained, the trial court should have granted plaintiffs leave to amend. Accordingly, Court reverse the order of dismissal.

A surety appeals an order denying its agents motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond. Respondent County of Los Angeles does not oppose the appeal. Court reverse.

Terry Evans, appellant, was charged with one count of possession of illegal substances in a jail facility, in violation of Penal Code section 4573.6, a felony. It was further alleged that Evans suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony, pursuant to sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). It was also alleged that pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), Evans served a prior prison term and committed an offense resulting in a felony conviction during a period of five years subsequent to the conclusion of said term. Evans filed a timely notice of appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

This case involves minor A.S., born January 2001. The father of the minor (hereinafter appellant) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights with regard to A.S. contending the Juvenile Court erred: (1) in failing to apply the exception within Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i); and (2) when it found notice sufficient under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)(25 U.S.C., 1901 et seq.). Court conclude the court did not err in failing to apply the exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) but that the matter must be reversed and remanded for the limited purpose for the juvenile court to comply with the ICWA.

Defendant Cathy Dawn Garcia appeals after conviction of welfare fraud (Welf. & Inst. Code, 10980, subd. (c)(2)) and perjury (Pen. Code, 118) in connection with her receipt of $5,839 in welfare benefits to which she was not entitled. She contends the trial court erred: (1) in failing to dismiss the criminal charges on the ground of collateral estoppel as to issues that were previously resolved in an administrative hearing proceeding conducted by the state Department of Social Services (DSS), (2) in denying a continuance at the outset of trial, and (3) that there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Appellant J.A. is the mother of S.G. (14 months old), M.G. (five months old), J.T. (four years old), and Jered T. (six years old) (collectively referred to as the minors). Steven G. is the father of S.G. and M.G.;[2]Bernard T. is the father of J.T. and Jered T. (25 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.) as to either father, and failed to inquire of Steven G. regarding his Indian heritage; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile courts finding that termination of parental rights as to S.G. and J.T. would not substantially interfere with the minors sibling relationships; and (3) the juvenile court failed to obtain a bonding study between the minors prior to terminating parental rights, thus violating due process. Court vacate the juvenile courts order terminating parental rights as to J.T. and remand the matter to the juvenile court for proper compliance with ICWA. Court affirm the juvenile courts order as to S.G.

Defendant Bobbie Christine Houlet entered a negotiated no contest plea to one count of welfare fraud (Welf. and Inst. Code, 10980, subd. (c)(2)) and was placed on formal probation for five years. After she three times violated her probation, defendant was sentenced to serve 16 months in state prison, and ordered to pay various fines and fees. She contends on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing a probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, 1202.44) pursuant to a statute enacted after her offenses were committed, and that it erred by one day in calculating her custody credits. The People concede both errors. The judgment is modified to strike the probation revocation fine, and to add one additional day of actual custody time. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment incorporating these changes and shall forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Tim C. (appellant), the father of O. C. (the minor), appeals from orders of the juvenile court awarding custody of the minor to the mother and terminating its jurisdiction over the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.21, subd. (f), 395; further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant, proceeding in propria persona, makes multiple contentions of alleged prejudicial error. For the reasons that follow, Court affirm the juvenile courts orders.