CA Unpub Decisions

C.L. (mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court order denying a modification petition, terminating parental rights to her daughter, R.L., and establishing adoption as a permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388, 366.26.)[1] The minor's alleged father, O.A., is not a party to this appeal. Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in terminating reunification services and in finding that the parental exception to adoption did not apply. She also claims that the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Court affirm.

Hansel L. Boyd appeals an order granting probation following his conviction of indecent exposure. (Pen. Code, 314, subd. 1.) Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant GeneThera, Inc. appeals the judgment entered following the summary adjudication in favor of plaintiffs and appellants M.A.G. Capital, LLC, Mercator Momentum Fund III, L.P., and Monarch Pointe Fund, Ltd. (together, the "MAG Parties") on their breach of contract claim. GeneThera contends that there were triable issues of material fact regarding whether the MAG Parties "committed the 'first material breach'" such that GeneThera had cause to terminate the contract. Court determine that GeneThera has failed to establish trial court error, and so affirm the judgment.

R.C. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to six-year-old D.C. (child) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (All further statutory references are to this Code.) She maintains that the juvenile court erred in failing to find applicable the beneficial contact exception to termination of parental rights. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Mother also contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied her section 388 modification petition. Court affirm.

After examination of the record, appellant N.S.'s appointed counsel was unable to identify any arguable issues and so informed this Court. The Court advised appellant that appellant has the right to personally submit any contentions appellant feels the Court should consider and further that the appeal would be dismissed in the absence of arguable issues. Appellant has not presented any issues for the Court's consideration. Because no claim of error or other defect has been raised in this matter, the appeal (notice of appeal filed February 11, 2008) is dismissed as abandoned. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952.)

Jose Luis Villalobos appeals the judgment entered after he pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced to two years state prison. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendants, Brendan Vacations, Inc. and TravCorp USA, Inc., appeal from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration. The petition to compel arbitration was filed in response to the complaint filed by plaintiff, Laurie Lyng. Plaintiff alleges she was terminated after she requested accommodations to undergo cancer treatment. Court affirm the order denying the petition to compel arbitration.

S.W. appeals from an order under Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 366.26 terminating her parental rights to her son D. She contends that DCFS's failure to facilitate visits, as ordered by the court, violated her right to due process and deprived her of the ability to establish the "benefit" or "visits" exception to termination of parental rights ( 366.26, subd., (c)(1)(b)(i)), requiring reversal. Court affirm.

James M. appeals from the order of May 12, 2008, terminating parental rights to J. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] James contends the dependency court failed to direct the Department of Children and Family Services to sufficiently inquire into whether J. had Indian heritage in violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901-1963). The Department argues James lacks standing to challenge compliance with the ICWA. We agree James has no standing, because he is merely an alleged father who did not acknowledge or establish paternity. (See In re Daniel M. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 703, 706, 709.) Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. (Ibid.; Grosset v. Wenaas (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1100, 1104.)

Defendant, Lisinio A. Castellanos, purports to appeal from a March 3, 2008 post-judgment order denying his sentence modification motion. In his post-judgment motion, defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a victim restitution order (Pen. Code, 1202.4) in an amount that exceeded his ability to pay. We recognized that the post-judgment order might not be appealable. We have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126-127; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) We issued an order to show cause concerning possible dismissal of this appeal and set the matter for oral argument. The order denying defendants motion to modify the July 26, 1999 sentence insofar as it imposed restitution is not, under the facts of this case, appealable. (People v. Cantrell (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 40, 43; People v. Bowles (1933) 135 Cal.App. 514, 516; see People v. Thomas (1959) 52 Cal.2d 521, 527.) The appeal is dismissed.

An amended consolidated information accused defendant Alexandr Poyras of 26 offenses, as follows: Count 1 (on or about August 15, 2005): receiving stolen property (victim, Maria Oliver). (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a); undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.) The information alleged as an enhancement that defendant committed one or more offenses while released from custody and awaiting judgment on a primary offense. ( 12022.1.) The information also alleged a prior strike for discharging a firearm in an inhabited dwelling with gross negligence. ( 246.3, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)
The matter is remanded for resentencing as directed in part VII of the Discussion. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the resentencing and to forward a certified copy thereof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

The parties on appeal present irreconcilable narratives. According to one, two youth correctional counselors used excessive force against two wards after the wards attacked them, then they and other employees lied to cover up the misconduct. According to the other, after wards cordinated a vicious attack, the two counselors fought back and tried to subdue the wards as best they could, and all the employees involved gave honest accounts after the incident; however, when film of the incident was televised, all were fired, partly to deflect attention from mismanagement, that is, poor training and understaffing in the California youth correctional system. The judgment is reversed with directions to the trial court to deny the Departments petition for writ of mandate. The Department shall pay all costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(1)(2).)

Appellant Anne E. Montgomery (Wife) appeals from a post judgment ruling whereby the trial court denied her further payment of proceeds from the sale of the family residence, to which Wife argued she was entitled under the terms of the judgment on reserved issues. Finding the trial court erred, Court reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court.

Sentenced to an aggregate term of four years four months in state prison, defendant Gustavo Zavala appeals. Defendants appellate counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and defendant filed a supplemental brief. Court affirm the judgment.