CA Unpub Decisions

This purported appeal is from the denial of a motion for relief due to attorney mistake. Court lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and therefore dismiss it.

On March 15, 1996, Melvin Green (dba Melvin Green Rentals) filed a complaint against Steven G. Lamb. K. J. Lamb is Stevens wife. The complaint alleged conversion, imposition of constructive trust and violation of trust. In the complaint, Green alleged that he employed Steven Lamb as bookkeeper for his rental business, as well as bookkeeper for Greens tax consultation business. The factual allegations underlying the counts were that Steven Lamb engaged in fraudulent and deceptive entries, causing damages to Green.
The denial of the motion to amend the judgment is affirmed.

After a bench trial in this slip-and-fall case, the court granted the defendants motions for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 638.1 on the grounds that plaintiffs evidence did not establish that the defendants owed plaintiff a duty to maintain the allegedly defective sidewalk or to warn of the hazard it presented. The court also entered an order forfeiting plaintiffs jury fees deposit. Court affirm the judgment and the order.

In the juvenile court, Nelson N. (father) unsuccessfully sought presumed father status and reunification services with his biological daughter Y.S. Court affirm the denial of presumed father status and reverse the denial of reunification services. Court remand the case to the juvenile court to conduct a new hearing to determine if reunification services would serve Y.S.s best interest.

On November 30, 2007, defendant, Anyla Rene Lazenby, pled nolo contendere to a drug charge. Her plea withdrawal motion was denied. Defendant has made no effort to secure a probable cause certificate. We have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) As a result, we issued an order to show cause concerning possible dismissal of the appeal and permitted the parties to orally argue the dismissal issue. The appeal is dismissed.

On appeal after resentencing, defendant Michael Richardson contends the trial court erred in reimposing the upper term and also erred in calculating his presentence custody credits. Court shall modify the judgment regarding credits and affirm as modified.

A modification decision.

Wes David Averhart entered a negotiated guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,[1] 192, subd. (a))[2]and admitted he committed the offense in association with a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) and personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1). Under the plea bargain, which called for a stipulated sentence of 31 years in prison, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the balance of the information, which included four counts of assault with a firearm, each of which included gang and personal firearm use allegations, and one count of conspiracy.
Averhart appeals, contending the sentence violated the principles set forth in People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36 (French).
As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The Benkoskys contend the cross-complaint was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure, section 339. Darby argues the contention is waived because the Benkoskys failed to properly plead the defense in their answer; and, in the alternative, the cross-complaint was timely filed. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of escaping while felony charges were pending. (Pen. Code, 4532, subd. (b)(1).)[1] In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true allegations that defendant had suffered five strike convictions ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a prison prior. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for 26 years to life and appeals, claiming his trial attorney was incompetent for failing to bring a Romero[2]motion and this court should examine materials determined by the trial court to not be discoverable by either party. Court reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Manual Cabrera-Garcia, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and admitted he had suffered a strike and five prior convictions of drug-related offenses within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2. The court imposed a prison term of 21 years, consisting of the three-year upper term on the substantive offense, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and three years on each of the five prior drug crime enhancements. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) imposition of sentence on all five prior-drug-crime enhancements may have violated the section 654 proscription against double punishment, and (2) his trial counsel failed to properly raise this section 654 claim in the trial court, thereby depriving appellant of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. Court will affirm.

C.S. is the mother of four children who have been dependents of the juvenile court since early 2006 and with whom she failed to reunify. At a permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) earlier this year, the court denied the mothers petition ( 388) to regain custody of her children. The court also found termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the children but calendared a further section 366.26 hearing because although they had a probability for adoption, there was as yet no identified or available adoptive home for them. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(3).) On appeal, the mother challenges the courts denial of her modification petition and no-detriment finding. On review, Court affirm.

M.O. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her son and daughter.[1] Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated July 25, 2008, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). This court in turn extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief, which she has done.
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

On June 16, 2008, appellant filed in the Kings County Superior Court a notice of appeal from an ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS issued on June 4, 2008. On August 19, 2008, this court issued an order informing appellant that this court was considering dismissing the appeal on the ground appellant attempts to appeal from a nonappealable order. The order granted appellant leave to file a letter brief addressing the appealability of the June 4, 2008 order. On August 19, 2008, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground the appeal attempts to appeal from a nonappealable interlocutory discovery order.
The appeal is dismissed.