CA Unpub Decisions

Alexander E. appeals an order appointing a conservator of his person and estate pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, Welfare & Institutions Code sections 5000, et seq. (LPS).[1] He contends substantial evidence does not support the jurys finding that he was gravely disabled, and in excluding from the jurys consideration the provision to him of government aid and assistance in evaluating whether he was gravely disabled. Court affirm.

Petitioner Save Our Ring of Green (SORG) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of administrative mandamus. (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5.) SORG asserts that respondents City of Thousand Oaks and City Council of the City of Thousand Oaks (City) violated the density and grading provisions of the City's Hillside Ordinance by approving a development permit for a single family residence on 6.8 acres in the City's Mountclef Ridge area. Court affirm.

Stephen Hankins (Hankins) appeals an order denying his claim of exemption to a wage garnishment initiated by David Wagner, the assignee of a money judgment against Hankins by his former wife, Cathy Hankins. We conclude: 1) the trial did not abuse its discretion by finding that Hankins had sufficient resources to support himself and his family; 2) the court reviewed the claim of exemption and a financial statement before it ruled; 3) Wagner's opposition to the claim of exemption appears to have been untimely, and, if so, unless he had good cause for the late filing, Hankins is entitled to a refund or credit for the amount of his funds that were subject to judgment execution during that levy period. Court remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Adolfo Flores appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award in his unlawful discrimination and wrongful termination action against defendants Prime Time Products, Inc., Mainland Products, Inc., Dan Hammond, and John Hammond (together Defendants). On appeal, Flores contends the trial court erred by: (1) granting Defendants' petition to compel arbitration of his claims because there was no written arbitration agreement and, even if there was, it is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable; and (2) granting Defendants' motion for sanctions against him for petitioning to correct the arbitration award.

In this felony criminal action, defendant Tyun Sockee Dodson petitions for a writ of mandate directing respondent Imperial County Superior Court to vacate that portion of its order of June 12, 2008, which denied his Pitchess[1]motion as to Correctional Officer Henry Sustaita, and to enter a new order "finding good cause and directing respondent court to conduct an in camera review of . . . Sustaita's personnel records for complaints of acts of dishonesty and falsification of reports as prescribed in Evidence Code [section] 1043 . . . ." Dodson specifically contends the superior court's denial of an in camera review of Sustaita's records for evidence of discipline for fabricating evidence and falsifying reports was "contrary to law, an abuse of discretion, and in excess of its jurisdiction," because good cause and a plausible factual foundation for information in Sustaita's records were shown. Court conclude the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that Dodson had met the low threshold for good cause for some of the information sought as to Sustaita in his Pitchess motion. Accordingly, Court grant the petition.

Jon S. appeals the findings and orders entered at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c). Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant Kelvin Lymon McKinney (defendant) raises quite a number of challenges to the conviction and seven-year prison sentence he received for attacking the woman with whom he was living. As discussed below, Court affirm each of the convictions, but remand so the trial court can stay the sentence for false imprisonment under Penal Code section 654.

Defendants Benjamin Henry Brown and Joe Batan Henderson invaded the tunnel in which Hendersons ex-girlfriend and two male transients were living. Brown, who was holding a knife, took money from the two men and handed some of it to Henderson. Both Brown and Henderson, who was wielding a metal rod, forced the ex-girlfriend to leave and to go to Hendersons apartment. As a result, both defendants were convicted on two counts of robbery; Henderson was convicted of felony false imprisonment, and Brown was convicted of misdemeanor false imprisonment.
The judgments are affirmed.

Following a jurys finding that defendant was a sexually violent predator (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.),[1]the trial court granted the Peoples motion to commit defendant for an indefinite term, and did so. Defendant appeals, bringing a number of constitutional challenges to the Sexual Violent Predator Act (hereinafter, the SVPA). Court reject his contentions and affirm.

When victim Allen Allison resisted an attempted home invasion robbery, he was shot twice; he survived for eight months, paralyzed from the waist down and on dialysis, until he died as a result of complications of his injuries. Defendant Vavao Polo Faumui was neither the mastermind behind the attempted robbery nor the actual shooter. Nevertheless, he self admittedly conspired to commit the robbery. Moreover, he fought with the victim, and there was evidence (albeit disputed) that, when defendant realized that he was losing the fight, he yelled to one of his cohorts, [S]hoot him.
Defendants sole appellate contention is that the trial court erred by refusing to sanitize his prior convictions i.e., it allowed the prosecution to introduce, for the purpose of impeaching defendant when he testified, evidence that defendant not only had prior felony convictions in general, but convictions for robbery and assault in particular. Court will hold that this was not error. Accordingly, Court will affirm.

A jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)),[1]with a special finding that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The jury also found that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. ( 12022.53, subd. (d).) Defendant was also convicted of assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)), with additional findings that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the crime ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) and inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the indeterminate sentence of 7 years to life for the attempted premeditated and deliberate first degree murder, plus 25 years to life for the gun enhancement, for a total term of 32 years to life.
Court agree that defendant was improperly sentenced and remand for resentencing; otherwise, Court affirm the judgment.

E.K. (father), the presumed father of I.K., and J.D. (mother) the mother of both I.K. and I.W., appeal from the trial courts order under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26,[1]terminating their parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. Father contends that the trial court erred when it summarily denied his section 388 petition. Mother and father both claim that the exception to termination of parental rights set out in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) (formerly subdivision (c)(1)(A)) applies in this case, and therefore the trial court erred in terminating those rights. In addition, mother contends that the evidence does not support the trial courts finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) does not apply in this case. We agree with mothers claim that the evidence does not support the trial courts finding that ICWA does not apply in this case because the record does not indicate that DPSS provided adequate notice to the pertinent Indian tribes. Therefore, we will conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of complying with ICWA.

Plaintiff appeals the judgment entered against her in consolidated actions for breach of contract and unlawful detainer. Because appellant has not identified any reviewable error in the trial court proceedings or provided an adequate record for review, Court affirm.

Appellant John Stephen Warren challenges his commitment as a sexually violent predator on numerous constitutional grounds. He also claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional objections. In addition, Warren contends the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence. Court affirm the judgment.