CA Unpub Decisions

J.L. (father) appeals from the juvenile courts order finding him to be an alleged father of E.M. and denying him reunification services. Father makes three contentions: (1) that the court erred by denying fathers request for a paternity test; (2) that the court erred by finding that father did not meet the requirements for presumed father status; and (3) that the court failed to make the required finding of whether it would be in E.M.s best interests to grant father reunification services. The San Bernardino County Department of Childrens Services (the department) and counsel for E.M. oppose fathers arguments. Court affirm the order.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and considered the record. We have invited real party to file an informal response but he has failed to do so. Court have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U. S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

A jury convicted appellant Jorge Leon Lopez of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1), criminal threat (Pen. Code, 422; count 2) and false imprisonment (Pen. Code, 236; count 3). The court imposed the four-year upper term on count 1, and concurrent three-year terms on each of counts 2 and 3.
On appeal, appellant contends the court erred in excluding evidence of the complaining witnesss conduct evincing moral turpitude under Evidence Code section 352 and impermissibly curtailed appellants right under the California and United States Constitutions to confront and cross-examine that witness. Court affirm.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5), appellant, Danny Allen Wood, pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378, subd. (c)), and admitted allegations he had suffered a prior conviction of that offense (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2) and served a prison term for a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced appellant to six years in prison.
On appeal, appellants sole contention is that the court erred in denying his suppression motion. Court will affirm.

Minh Nghia Lee appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted premeditated murder, and found true the special circumstances allegation of lying in wait and the allegation he was armed with a firearm. Lee argues: (1) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss because the prosecution of his case was unreasonably delayed; (2) the court erroneously granted the prosecutions cause challenges thereby denying him a fair and impartial jury; (3) the court erroneously allowed the prosecution to call a witness to testify knowing the witness would refuse to testify; (4) the court erroneously admitted a redacted version of his statement to the police; (5) the court erroneously admitted the gang experts testimony; and (6) the lying-in-wait allegation was inapplicable to him because he was not the actual killer. None of his contentions have merit, and Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Ronald Garber appeals from an order denying his motion to set aside the judgment in this marital dissolution case. Ronald argues his obligation to pay agreed‑upon spousal support to his former wife, Melinda Garber Kirkwood, never arose because Melinda registered her domestic partnership with Kristin Kirkwood before the judgment was entered.[1] Family Code section 4337 provides that spousal support automatically terminates when the former spouse receiving support remarries. Ronald argues spousal support should also automatically terminate when the former spouse receiving support enters into a registered domestic partnership. However, because the trial court did not have before it any evidence that Melinda had actually entered into a registered domestic partnership, the issue of the possible application of section 4337 was not before the trial court, and is not before us. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ronalds motion to set aside the judgment. Court therefore affirm the courts order.

Plaintiffs David L. Robinson (plaintiff), his wife, Marcia A. Robinson, and his company, R&R Consolidated Enterprises, Inc. (R&R), appeal from the judgment entered following the trial courts grant of summary judgment to defendants Invensys, PLC, David Golden, Brian Haynes, and Paul Mesmer. They contend summary judgment was improper because the trial court ignored evidence, including a decision by the U.S. Department of Labor, and misapplied the law in determining plaintiff was an independent contractor. Finding no error, Court affirm.

On July 9, 2008, the California Supreme Court transferred this matter to this court with directions to vacate our decision filed on February 7, 2007, and to reconsider the cause in light of Santa Cruz County Ordinance No. 4921, which amends sections 13.10, 13.20 and 16.50 of the Santa Cruz County Code.

On July 9, 2008, the California Supreme Court transferred this matter to this court with directions to vacate our decision filed on February 7, 2007, and to reconsider the cause in light of Santa Cruz County Ordinance No. 4921, which amends sections 13.10, 13.20 and 16.50 of the Santa Cruz County Code. Following the direction of the California Supreme Court, we hereby vacate our prior decision. Having reconsidered the matter, for the reasons stated below we will vacate the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for (1) reconsideration of Traviss petition for a writ of mandate in light of Santa Cruz County Ordinance No. 4921, which amends the Second Unit Ordinance (Santa Cruz County Code, section 13.10.681); and (2) consideration of Traviss claim for attorney fees.
The judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate is vacated.

Defendant Efren Carrillo Rodriguez appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to seven counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child by force, violence, duress, menace or fear. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (b)(1).) Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to serve 44 years in state prison. This timely appeal ensued. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant L. L. (father) challenges the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section[1]366.26 hearing for the selection of a permanent plan for his son L. L.-U. (L.). Father challenges the juvenile courts finding that it would be detrimental to place L. in his care, and its finding that father had been provided with reasonable reunification services by real party Monterey County Department of Social & Employment Services (the Department). Court conclude that both findings are supported by substantial evidence and deny the petition.

Plaintiff Jennifer Goldstein appeals from an order quashing service of summons upon out-of-state defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and from a judgment entered after the court sustained a demurrer brought by in-state defendants without leave to amend. Court affirm.

Minor N.R. appeals from an order setting victim restitution. Court find no error and affirm.

In her handwritten brief, appellant Anna Karin Antonsson, acting in propria persona, argues that the trial court erred in refusing to order a child custody evaluation pursuant to Family Code section 3111, subdivision (a). As in her previous appeal, no basis exists for reversal because appellant fails to support her assertions of error with legal argument or analysis. Consequently, Court affirm.