CA Unpub Decisions

The main issue in this appeal concerns how to resolve a dispute between a national denomination and an affiliated local church about ownership and control of property of the local church, Korean Hope Christian Church (Hope Church). This in turn involves the meaning of Corporations Code section 9142[1] and whether its provisions authorize the imposition of a trust on local church property in favor of the national denomination. Defendants, the former pastor and former elders and members of the Hope Church, appeal a judgment imposing a trust on that churchs real property in favor of the national denominational church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA), quieting title in PCUSA, and awarding injunctive relief. Court conclude that, applying neutral principles of law to this property dispute, substantial evidence supports the judgment. Moreover, section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) applies to this case as a neutral principle of law, and the trial court properly found that a trust was impressed on the assets of Hope Church in favor of PCUSA. Court further find that the trial court properly deferred to the determination of the ecclesiastical body, PCUSA and its Hanmi Presbytery and Hope Administrative Commission, of who constituted the true church of Hope Church. Finally, Court find that defendants have not shown that the proceedings of the Hope Administration Commission denied them due process. Court affirm the judgment.

Rafael Skate Diosdado appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to count 1 possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and following his convictions by jury on count 4 kidnapping to commit rape (Pen. Code, 209, subd. (b)(1)) with personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b)), count 5 sexual penetration by a foreign object (Pen. Code, 289, subd. (a)(1)), count 6 attempted forcible rape (Pen. Code, 664, 261, subd. (a)(2)), and count 7 forcible rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2)), with findings as to each of counts 5, 6, and 7, that appellant personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.3, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)) and findings as to each of counts 5 and 7, that appellant committed aggravated kidnapping (Pen. Code, 667.61, subds. (a) & (d)(2)), kidnapped (Pen. Code, 667.61, subds. (a) & (e)(1)), and personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, 667.61, subds. (a) & (e)(4)); and count 8 criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422) with an admission that he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (d)). The court sentenced appellant to prison for a total unstayed term of 48 years, plus 50 years to life. Appellant and respondent claim the trial court committed sentencing errors. Court modify the judgment and, as modified, affirm it with directions.

Appellants Michele Lawrence, Michael Hamilton, and Jacoby Kingston sued various defendants, including respondents Al DAmico and Palos Verdes Realty for injuries appellants sustained when a balcony upon which they were standing fell off of a building. DAmico and Palos Verdes Realty were alleged to be real estate brokers who undertook additional duties with respect to the balcony, including extermination, and performed acts beyond their roles as real estate brokers.
Appellants contend the trial court erred by sustaining DAmicos general demurrer to all causes of action alleged against him and granting Palos Verdes Realtys motion for judgment on the pleadings to the same causes of action. Court conclude the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer and granted the motion for judgment. Accordingly, Court find no error and affirm.

William H. (the minor) appeals from the order declaring him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (section 602) as a result of his having committed a second degree robbery. He contends, and the People concede, that the matter should be remanded to the juvenile court for recalculation of the minors predisposition credits. Court agree.

A modification decision.

Anne S., mother of L. (10 years old) and K. (eight years old), appeals from the orders of the juvenile court that denied her petition for modification (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388) and appointed the childrens paternal grandmother, H.D., as their legal guardian ( 366.26). Court affirm.

Garo Papazian asserts a variety of errors in child support orders made by the trial court in the marital dissolution action to which he is a party. Court affirm.

Appellant Kenneth Wayne Butler (Butler) was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney with murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a),[1]attempted robbery in violation of sections 664 and 211, and conspiracy to commit robbery in violation of section 182, subdivision (a)(1). The Third Amended Information further alleged that the murder was committed while Butler was engaged in the commission of a robbery within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17), and that Butler had two prior convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).[2] A jury found Butler guilty of all charges and also found the robbery-murder special circumstance to be true. Butler admitted the prior conviction allegations. The trial court sentenced Butler to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder charge, plus two years based on the prior convictions. The court also imposed, but stayed three year terms on the conspiracy and attempted robbery convictions. Court affirm.

While his marital dissolution proceeding was pending, husband Marc Gottesman filed a separate civil action against his wife, Peggy Christensen, and additional defendants. The civil action concerned Gottesmans legal rights to a community property family home that was soon to be sold pursuant to court orders entered in the dissolution proceeding. The trial court sustained Christensens demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend and dismissed Gottesmans civil action. The trial court also ordered Gottesman to withdraw a lis pendens he filed in connection with the civil complaint. Court affirm the judgment.

Evan Roklen, who is co-trustee of four irrevocable trusts, brings this consolidated appeal from four probate court orders granting declaratory petitions brought pursuant to Probate Code[1]section 21320. The four irrevocable trusts are: the Melinda Goldrich Trust under the Goldrich Childrens Trust dated November 8, 1972, as modified by Court Order dated January 28, 2002 (Melindas trust); the Andrea Goldrich Cayton Trust under the Goldrich Childrens Trust dated November 8, 1972, as modified by Court Order dated January 28, 2002 (Andreas trust); the Garrett Raif Cayton Trust dated September 16, 1997 (Garretts trust); and the Lindsay Madison Cayton 1998 Trust dated June 26, 1998 (Lindsays trust). Jona and Doretta S. Goldrich created the four irrevocable trusts for: Melinda, their daughter; Andrea, their daughter; and Andreas two children, Garrett and Lindsay.[2] Mr. Roklen claims that the proposed petitions to modify the trusts to remove him as co trustee without cause and his consent violated the no contest provisions of the trusts. As a result, Mr. Roklen argues the probate court erred in ruling that the beneficiaries petitions were protected by the safe harbor provisions of section 21320. Court affirm the finding the petitions to modify the trusts to remove Mr. Roklen as the co trustee did not violate the no contest provisions of the specific trusts.

In a dependency proceeding, the father and mother filed petitions for writ challenging the juvenile courts order setting the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. The petitions challenge the jurisdictional findings, but the parents do not challenge the evidence supporting the finding that their child, Nathan T., was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b),[1] and therefore the jurisdictional findings made pursuant to those provisions are sufficient to support the adjudication. The petitions also challenge the evidence for the finding that the child was a person described by section 300, subdivision (e), but we conclude that substantial evidence showed that Nathan suffered severe physical abuse in the form of more than one act of physical abuse, each of which causes bleeding, deep bruising, significant or internal swelling, bone fracture, or unconsciousness and therefore substantial evidence supported the finding that Nathan was a person described by section 300, subdivision (e). The petitions are denied.

One case charged defendant with committing several offenses against two of his friends, and resulted in convictions for robbery (Pen. Code, 211; unspecified section references that follow are to the Penal Code), false imprisonment ( 236), and making criminal threats ( 422). The jury acquitted defendant of a second count of robbery and also acquitted defendant on a charge of assault with intent to commit rape ( 220), but it convicted him of the lesser included offense of simple assault ( 240). The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant Gordon James Wright in case No. 04F6567 of transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)),[1]possessing methamphetamine for sale ( 11378), possessing drug paraphernalia ( 11364, a misdemeanor), and possessing less than 28.5 grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor ( 11357, subd. (b)). It found defendant not guilty of being under the influence of a controlled substance ( 11550, subd. (a)), and the court declared a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict on the charge of driving under the influence of drugs (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)). The court found true the special allegations regarding prior drug-related convictions ( 11370.2, subd. (c)) and a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)).
On appeal, defendant challenges the courts refusal to consider a negotiated plea on the second day of trial. He also argues that the court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it consulted the presiding judge outside the presence of defendant and his attorney. Court affirm the judgment.

After terminating probation in two cases and revoking probation in two more, the trial court sentenced defendant Erik Lemar Logan to three years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the court abused its discretion by terminating probation and sentencing him to prison. Court affirm the judgment.