CA Unpub Decisions

In this malicious prosecution action, plaintiff Walter K. Pyle challenges the trial courts dismissal of his lawsuit after the granting of special motions by defendants Daniel A. Horowitz and Robin A. Dubner to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (commonly known as the anti SLAPP statute) (case No. A114353). Defendant Daniel A. Horowitz challenges the trial courts denial of his motion, pursuant to section 473, to vacate an order denying his request for attorney fees as untimely (case No. A117105). Court affirm both decisions.

Lyndon Caoyonan appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, 187, 189.) He contends his conviction must be reversed because (1) the trial court erred when it refused to suppress his confession, (2) the court abused its discretion when it admitted pictures and a videotape that depicted aspects of the crime, and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court conclude the court did not commit any prejudicial errors and affirm.

Donald Sean Piper appeals from a judgment imposed upon his plea of no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) with prior convictions (Veh. Code,[1] 23152, subd. (a), 23550).) He contends that application of the amended version of section 23550 violates the ex post facto clause of the federal Constitution. Court affirm.

Pursuant to interlocutory and final judgments, the marriage of Theresa and Leslie Quock was dissolved, permanently resolving issues relating to division of property and child and spousal support. Both parties now contend the final judgment must be reversed based on a variety of purported errors. We reverse the final judgment in part, affirm it in part, and remand the matter to the trial court for further consideration of certain issues in light of the conclusions Court reach below.

Defendant Jose Pinon Urbina appeals from a conviction on four counts of touching two minors under the age of 14 with lewd intent, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 15 years to life. He challenges the admission of evidence concerning a prior uncharged act for which he was previously tried and acquitted. Because the trial court erred in failing to reject evidence of the prior act under Evidence Code section 352 and it is reasonably probable that the jury would not have convicted him without that evidence, Court must reverse the conviction.

This appeal is taken after a plea of nolo contendere and conviction following denial of appellants request to vacate the appointment of trial counsel. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellant filed a supplemental brief.

Mark E. Nichols (appellant), former husband of Wendy D. Nichols (respondent), appeals from an order requiring him to pay $1,655 per month in child support and $621 per month in spousal support. He contends the trial court erred in: (1) imputing income to him of $10,000 per month; (2) refusing to allow his doctor to testify telephonically; and (3) using computer calculations in setting the spousal support amount. Court reject the contentions and affirm.

Appellants Chariot SVN, LLC (Chariot) and its managing member, Charles M. Sprincin, sued attorney Brian W. Newcomb for fraud and negligence, based on Newcombs professional efforts undertaken on behalf of his client William Garlock. The trial court sustained Newcombs demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. Appellants argue they stated a valid claim for concealment, and it was reasonably foreseeable they would be harmed by Newcombs negligence in his representation of Garlock. Appellants further contend the trial court abused its discretion when it denied them leave to amend the complaint. We agree with the trial court that Newcomb owed no duty to appellants as a matter of law, and there was no reasonable possibility appellants could cure the defects in the complaint by amendment. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

The trial court entered an order restraining defendant Bruce May from contacting plaintiffs Carla Fay, August Fay, and Marquita Reyes, and requiring him to stay away from them when he was not working near their home. Defendant did not appeal that order. He subsequently made two motions to vacate the restraining order, one of which was withdrawn and the other denied. Defendant appeals the denial of his second motion to vacate. Finding the record inadequate for review and defendants contentions inappropriate on a motion to vacate a restraining order, Court affirm the trial courts order.

Clint Harbour appeals from an order terminating his probation and imposing a prison term of five years. Harbours court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court have done so and find no issues that merit briefing. In a separate cross-appeal, the People contend the trial court lacked authority at the time it terminated probation to reduce a previously imposed but suspended sentence. Court agree and modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Eddie Dean Carson appeals judgments entered in four criminal cases. The Attorney General has moved to dismiss on the ground that defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Court dismiss the appeal.

Karl Nicholas (Father) appeals the family courts order denying his motion to modify a stipulated judgment regarding visitation and child support, and awarding respondent Christine Earnshaw (Mother) $1,500 in sanctions. Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

C.S. admitted to a charge that she drove a vehicle while she had a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher. She appeals the juvenile courts dispositional order that required her to wear and pay the cost of a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM). Although the juvenile court was required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 903.2, subdivision (b) to determine the wards ability to pay the cost of the SCRAM program, Court conclude its failure to do so was harmless error and affirm.

This is an appeal from the judgment in a juvenile delinquency matter. Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court found that minor R.K. had committed a lewd act upon a child in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). On appeal, R.K. seeks reversal of the judgment on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of intent to sustain the charge. Court affirm.