CA Unpub Decisions

Christopher C. appeals from the juvenile courts order continuing him a ward of the court and ordering him placed at Dorothy Kirby Mental Health Center, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the finding he committed arson. Court affirm.

A jury convicted Robert Recinos of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, with a finding that he did in fact inflict great bodily injury. The trial court placed Recinos on formal probation for 36 months on condition he serve 270 days in county jail. On appeal, Recinoss appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which raises no issues. Court have independently reviewed the record, and affirm the judgment. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

V.M. (Mother) appeals a dispositional order of the dependency court that limits her educational rights with respect to her daughter, N.M. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Donald Ray of false imprisonment by use of force and violence (Pen. Code, 236, 237, subd. (a); count 1), assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd (a); count 3.)[1] Following the jury trial, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had three prior convictions for serious felonies, to wit, forcible rape, first degree burglary, and first degree robbery, pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(2). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 25 years to life in prison, the sentence on count 2 to run concurrently, and the sentence on count 3 stayed pursuant to section 654. Donna had bruises around her eye, on her neck, under her chest, on her left thigh, on her hands, shoulder, arms, and all over her back. She had swelling on her head, and a cut on her ear. Officers went to defendants motel room, and arrested him.

A jury convicted defendant Steven Michael Splawn of one count of first degree burglary and one count of second degree burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) Defendant admitted allegations of four strikes, three prior serious felony convictions, and a prior prison term. The court sentenced defendant to 31 years to life in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends: 1) there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions; 2) the court erred in admitting evidence that he possessed several pieces of jewelry, including a womans watch, when booked into jail; 3) the denial of his motion for a new trial was an abuse of discretion; and 4) the court applied the incorrect standard in denying his motion to dismiss his prior felony convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). Court shall affirm.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred by granting the cross-defendants' anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion and dismissing the cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. As the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and the cross-complainant showed no probability of prevailing on the merits, Court affirm the order. Additionally, Court grant the cross defendants' motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

In April 2006 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition in the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b) on behalf of Erika. The petition alleged that Erika was at risk of suffering serious physical harm because her mother, Claudia M., and Claudia's boyfriend, exposed Erika to domestic violence and drugs in the home. The court detained Erika and ordered that she be placed in out of home care.
Because the facts Francisco alleged in his section 388 petition would not have sustained a favorable decision on the modification petition, Francisco was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. (In re Zachary G., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 808; In re Jamika W. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1450-1451.) The order is affirmed.

C. J., a minor found guilty of committing lewd acts on a child under age 14, contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he used excessive force. He also contends that the juvenile court erred in its decision to commit him to a sex offender group home. Finally, he contends that he was entitled to additional days of custody credit. For the following reasons, Court affirm the convictions and remand for recalculation of time credits.

Jose Oliver Chavez, III, appeals from a judgment of 32 years to life for attempted murder. For the following reasons, Court affirm.

Three brothers, W. Jeffrey Robins (Jeffrey), Gregory J. Robins (Gregory), and Richard D. Robins (Richard), filed an action against Regal Entertainment Group (Regal) in connection with the death of their father, William R. Robins (decedent).[1] Each of the three sought relief for wrongful death and survival causes of action. Gregory and Richard settled before trial. Regal made a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 statutory offer to compromise to Jeffrey, who did not accept the offer. Jeffrey continued to trial, in both his individual capacity and his capacity as successor in interest to the decedent. Regal prevailed. The court granted Regals motion for attorney fees and denied Jeffreys motion to strike costs. Jeffrey appeals, contending the costs award violates Code of Civil Procedure section 1026, subdivision (b) and the offer to compromise was invalid, because it was made without apportioning the amount offered as between each of his two capacities and because it was unreasonable in amount. Court reject his arguments and affirm.

Arezoo Rezvani was sued by her mother-in-law, Badri Tehrani, soon after Tehranis son and Rezvani initiated marital dissolution proceedings. Tehrani, who is a child daycare provider, claimed Rezvani was guilty of slander and caused her to lose a client. One year later, on the eve of trial, Tehrani dismissed her lawsuit. Rezvani immediately filed an action for malicious prosecution against Tehrani and her counsel, Albert M. Sterwerf. The trial court denied Sterwerfs anti SLAPP motion, and he filed this appeal. Court affirm the order.

Ariel Y. (the mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to Ariel B. (Ariel). She argues the court failed to appoint a guardian ad litem for her, an error that requires reversal. She further contends the court erred by finding the benefit exception of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply. Court find that neither of these contentions has merit and affirm the order.

In this appeal, the maternal aunt of a dependent child challenges the juvenile courts denial of her petition to change the childs placement. She argues that the court failed to honor the statutory preference for relative placement and that she was denied due process. Finding no error, Court affirm the challenged order.

After the trial court denied defendant William Lewiss motion to suppress the evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5),[1] he entered a plea of no contest to one count of robbery with personal use of a firearm ( 212.5, subd. (c), 12022.5, subd. (a)), and admitted to having served two prior prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Sentenced to state prison for a total term of nine years, defendant appeals. He contends the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion in that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the vehicle he was riding in just before his arrest. Court affirm.