CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Steven Parsee appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of count 1, selling heroin, a controlled substance, to wit. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a).) Appellant admitted a prior conviction pursuant to section 11370.2, subdivision (a), for violating section 11352, subdivision (a) and a prior conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) for violating section 11350, subdivision (a). Court find no error and affirm.

This appeal arises out of the Aubry Revocable Family Trust dated March 4, 1987. Nina Ringgold appeals from orders entered on June 19 and 26, and July 3 and 31, 2007. Because Ms. Ringgold has refused and continues to refuse to obey a probate court order issued on December 16, 2005, Court dismiss the appeal.

Ismael Ramirez appeals from an order revoking probation and sentencing him to the upper term of five years in state prison. He contends that insufficient evidence supports the trial court's finding that he violated probation. Court affirm.

The minor, Randall W., appeals from an order: adjudicating a Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 petition; declaring that he remain a ward of the juvenile court; and placing him in a three-month camp community placement program. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.) Court affirm the order.

Gangi Builders, Inc. (Gangi) appeals from the courts order denying its petition to vacate (and confirming) an arbitration award for Bow Tile Corp. (Bow Tile) concerning a dispute over a construction contract. Gangi argues the trial court should have vacated the arbitration award under Code of Civil Procedure section[1]1286.2, subdivision (a)(4) because the arbitrator exceeded his authority in considering claims and awarding damages beyond those sought in the original complaint and in the demand for arbitration Bow Tile submitted to the American Arbitration Association (AAA). We do not agree. As the lower court observed in ruling on the petition, the arbitrators award does not appear to have exceeded either the authority conveyed to the arbitrator under the broad arbitration clause in the parties subcontract, nor does it exceed the scope of the parties equally broad stipulation to arbitrate filed in the underlying action. In addition, Gangi has not carried its burden to demonstrate that Bow Tile narrowed its claim in the submission to AAA such that the subsequent award exceeded the scope of the submission or that the arbitrator violated AAA rules in a manner that would show he exceeded his authority. Consequently, Court affirm.

Appellant Anita Holcomb appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent UPP Entertainment Marketing, Inc. (UPP), under which Holcomb was required to restore funds paid by UPP for rental of a property from a third party during the 2005 Sundance Film Festival (the Festival). Holcomb had acted as UPPs agent in the transaction and when a dispute arose, the owners agent returned UPPs payment to Holcomb. Holcomb contends substantial evidence does not support the judgment, which was rendered under a breach of contract theory. Court conclude the judgment was proper under a theory of money had and received, and affirm.

In these three consolidated appeals, Nina Ringgold challenges various probate court orders. Because Ms. Ringgold has refused and continues to refuse to obey a probate court order issued on December 16, 2005, Court dismiss the appeals as to her.

Appellant Kristian Josue Silva was charged by felony complaint with 15 counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code 211)[1]and 12 counts of false imprisonment by violence. ( 236) The complaint alleged a firearm enhancement as to each count pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b). Appellant pleaded not guilty to all counts.
Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously denied his right to discharge retained counsel. Court conditionally reverse and remand to allow appellant an opportunity to obtain new counsel.

Jose Ibarra appeals from the judgment following his guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a).) He admitted a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d ).) The trial court sentenced him to 32 months in prison (the low term of 16 months doubled) and dismissed 3 prior prison term allegations. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) Appellant contends the trial court erred when it denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence, after which he changed his plea. Court affirm.

In 1996, appellant Filiberto Quintero pled no contest to one count of possession of marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359. He was placed on three years probation on the condition he serve 180 days in county jail. In 2007, appellant filed a motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5 to vacate his plea. Appellant appeals from the denial of that motion. Court affirm the trial court's order.

Veronica R. and Jorge R. (the parents) appeal the orders declaring their daughter Gracie R. a dependent of the juvenile court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (j) and the findings under section 361 that substantial danger existed to the physical and emotional well-being of Gracie R., and no reasonable means existed to protect the minor without her removal from parental custody. The parents claim sufficient evidence did not support the courts jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders, and that the court erred in failing to consider alternatives other than removal from the family home. As we shall explain, the court did not err in concluding the parents engaged in abuse and neglect in finding that they intentionally failed to seek medical attention for the newborn who suffered injuries as a result of the manner in which she was placed in the car seat and that the evidence was therefore sufficient to support an exercise of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). In addition, the court did not err in removing the minor under section 361. Sufficient evidence existed to support the courts finding the parents posed a substantial risk of harm to the child based on the jurisdictional findings. Consequently, Court affirm.

A modification decision.

We affirm orders terminating mother Yolanda G.s parental rights as to Danielle T. (born January 2005) and R.T. (born September 2006) and denying her request for return of her children to her custody.

Nina Ringgold appeals from an October 30, 2007 order on a petition for instructions filed by Myer J. Sankary, as successor trustee of the Aubry Family Trust. Because Ms. Ringgold has refused and continues to refuse to obey a probate court order issued on December 16, 2005, Court dismiss the appeal.