CA Unpub Decisions

This dispute began as a partition action of commercial property operated as a used car lot, title to which was held by Pierre Boladian, Guillermo Ocampo, Angelica Lerma, and Laura Cortez. After the property was sold to a third party, the entitlement to approximately $176,000 in net proceeds from the sale of the property came before the court. The trial court awarded Boladian a 25 percent interest in the proceeds, rejecting his claim that there was a drafting mistake in a deed and that he and his grantor, Francisco Lopez, intended that Boladian receive a 50 percent interest in the property. On appeal from the judgment, Boladian challenges the trial courts rejection of his reformation claim. Boladian and Lopez also challenge the trial courts denial of a credit of $63,715 for a mortgage payment. We affirm the judgment because appellants contentions are essentially challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, and the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment.

T.M. appeals from the order continuing wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) following findings that he committed four robberies and that one of the robberies was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The minor was committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) (formerly known as the California Youth Authority), for a maximum of six years. He contends that commitment to the DJJ constituted an abuse of discretion. Court affirm.

Robert Beard appeals from the judgment entered following a bifurcated jury trial in which he appeared in propria persona and was convicted of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery. (The convictions arose from incidents in the West Hollywood area on July 2 and July 3, 2005, in each of which a woman on a public street was grabbed in a sexual manner by defendant, who then threatened the woman with a screwdriver.) In the second phase of trial, defendant was found to have sustained multiple prior felony convictions, including two under the Three Strikes law. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 37 years to life in state prison. Defendant contends that the trial court erred with respect to his right of self representation and in reinstating one of the prior conviction allegations. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant Isaiah Cortez Posey of three counts of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder ( 664/187, subd. (a))[1]with the findings that the crimes had been committed for the benefit of a street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that during commission of the offenses, a principal had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury to each victim ( 12022.53, subd. (d)). A jury convicted defendant Isaiah Cortez Posey of three counts of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder ( 664/187, subd. (a))[1]with the findings that the crimes had been committed for the benefit of a street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that during commission of the offenses, a principal had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury to each victim ( 12022.53, subd. (d)).

Maurice Butler claims an evidentiary error requires reversal of his conviction for petty theft with priors. (Pen. Code 484, subd. (a), 666.) Court find no error and affirm.

Donald Charleston appeals from the judgment entered following a bifurcated jury trial in which he was convicted of assault on a peace officer (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (c); count 1) and evading an officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a); count 2) and was found to have suffered multiple prior convictions that had been alleged under Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (a), 667.5, subdivision (b), and 1170.12 (the Three Strikes law). Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of evading an officer while driving recklessly and further requests that this court independently review the transcript of a Pitchess hearing. Court find merit in defendants sufficiency contention and reverse the judgment on count 2. In all other respects, we affirm.

Appellant Owen B. is the father of K.B., a dependent of the juvenile court. Owen contends there is insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings and the dispositional orders regarding K.B. Court affirm.

Five days before D.R. became 18 years old in November 2006, his legal guardian, Lloyd L., petitioned the juvenile court seeking to modify a 2003 order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction, to reinstate jurisdiction and to continue services for D.R., who suffered from developmental and medical problems. The court summarily denied Lloyds petition and both Lloyd and D.R. appealed. In an opinion filed in September 2007, we reversed the order and directed the juvenile court on remand to conduct a hearing on the merits of the petition for modification. (In re D.R. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 480, 489.) D.R. now appeals from an October 23, 2007 order denying the petition for modification, contending that the order was (1) premature, because the October 23 hearing was held before the issuance of the remittitur, and (2) made without due process notice to D.R. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a letter brief agreeing only with D.R.s first contention. Because the October 23, 2007 hearing on the petition for modification was held before issuance of the remittitur, Court reverse the October 23, 2007 order.

S. M. is the mother of A. M. (age 14), M. M. (age 12), C. M.1 (age 5) and C. M.2 (age 5) (hereafter the children). She appeals from an order denying her petition for modification of a prior order of the juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388.) The petition sought the return of the children to her custody. She also appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights to C. M.1 and C. M.2 (hereafter the twins).
We affirm the order denying the section 388 petition. As to the judgment terminating parental rights, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings. However, we agree with appellant that respondent and the juvenile court did not comply with the notice requirements of the ICWA. Court conditionally reverse the judgment terminating parental rights and remand the matter with directions that the juvenile court ensure full compliance with the notice provisions of the ICWA.

S.C. is the child of J.C. (Father) and M.R. (Mother). She was born in January 2006 with drugs in her system and immediately taken into custody by the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department). S.C. was placed with foster parents Maria E. and her husband shortly thereafter. Mother did not identify a father on the birth certificate. In April 2006, Father was deemed to be S.C.s biological father after a blood test confirmed his paternity.
Initially, Father expressed no interest in reuniting with S.C. Later, he filed a section 388 petition seeking custody of S.C. and reunification services. Father was provided reunification services, which the court terminated on August 9, 2007. On January 22, 2008, Father filed a second section 388 petition. That day, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing, denied the petition, terminated Fathers parental rights, and selected adoption as the permanent plan. He appeals from those orders. Court affirm.

Andre Billingsley appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of selling cocaine base and his admission that he had sustained prior felony convictions. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Court affirm.

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requested the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising numerous claims of error. For the reasons discussed below, we shall reject defendants claims and affirm the judgment.

Warren Claudius Lemons appeals a judgment convicting him of one count each of special circumstance felony murder, sexual penetration by a foreign object on a drugged victim, and sexual penetration by a foreign object on an unconscious victim. He contends that (1) the court erred in precluding his attorney from presenting an advanced consent defense to the sexual penetration counts; (2) the court erred in modifying the jury instructions defining special circumstance felony murder; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of sexual penetration; and (4) the court erroneously believed that it lacked the discretion to strike the jury's special circumstance felony murder finding and, based on that mistaken belief, imposed a sentence that was cruel and unusual given the circumstances of the case. Finding no basis for reversal, Court affirm the judgment.

By a first amended complaint, plaintiff and appellant Lindsey E. Stewart, proceeding in propria persona, sued defendants and respondents Rady Children's Hospital San Diego (Hospital), K.I.D.S Therapy Associates, Inc., and Betsy A. Slavik (collectively Slavik), alleging causes of action styled as "Intentional Misrepresentation of Fact" and "Negligent Misrepresentation of Fact." Hospital and Slavik generally and specially demurrered, asserting several grounds. The demurrers were sustained with leave to amend. When the complaint was not amended, the trial court on Hospital's and Slavik's request dismissed the action with prejudice. After entry of judgment, Stewart appeals. The judgment is affirmed.