CA Unpub Decisions

In this second appeal in this juvenile dependency matter, O.A. and her adopted children, Frank A. and Erica A., separately appeal from a June 4, 2007 order entered at the conclusion of the 12-month review hearing on family reunification. Appellants challenge the juvenile courts findings, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (f), that the return of the children to mothers physical custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the children, and that mother was provided reasonable reunification services. Court affirm.

L.H. appeals from orders that appoint a de facto parent for her children R.and Adrian. Court conclude appellant lacks standing to challenge the orders and dismiss the appeal.

Kief G. appeals the juvenile courts order terminating parental rights to his son Keifer G., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26.[1] Appellant contends the juvenile courts order should be reversed on three grounds: (1) respondents efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to prevent the breakup of a Native American family were inadequate under section 361.7; (2) respondent failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody of Keifer by appellant is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child, pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(2)(B)(ii); and, (3) appellant demonstrated that he maintained regular visitation with his son and that the minor would benefit from a continuing relationship with appellant, pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). Court conclude the juvenile courts order terminating appellants parental rights is adequately supported by the record and therefore affirm.

Corina C. (Corina) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights after a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. She contends the order must be reversed because: (1) notification under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; ICWA) was incomplete; and (2) the order would substantially interfere with her childs relationship with a sibling. Court remand the matter to the juvenile court for further notice under the ICWA and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant appeals from judgments in two cases following his pleas of no contest in one and a revocation of probation in the other. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel represents that she has advised defendant that he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to this courts attention. He has not done so.Upon independent review of the record, court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

Cary W. Rampone appeals from a finding that he violated the terms of his probation and the execution of a previously-imposed state prison sentence. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The judgment and sentence imposed are affirmed.

Appellant Benny Javier Aguirre appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of count 1, murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a));[1]count 2, attempted premeditated, deliberate murder ( 664, 187, subd. (a)); and count 3, attempted premeditated, deliberate murder ( 664, 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true the allegation that appellant personally used and discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e)(1), and that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C).
On March 4, 2006, appellant, a member of the 12th Street Sharkys gang, challenged a group of young men leaving a party in Pomona. Appellant and a fellow gang member shot at the men as they were getting into their car, killing Trujillo and seriously wounding Johnny Belmontez.
The abstract of judgment is ordered corrected at part 2 to delete references that appellant received a sentence of 15 years to life for counts 2 and 3 pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(5) and to reflect that appellant received 280 days of actual custody credit rather than 274 days. The judgment is affirmed.

Respondents Tsung Chang Su and Kuei Lien Lo agreed to purchase a home from respondent Shan Mei Wang; appellants Helen Yang and YF Limited, Inc., dba IRN Realty, acted as brokers. The sale did not go through and the buyers sued the seller as well as the brokers. The seller cross-complained against the buyers and the brokers. In turn, the brokers cross-complained against the seller and the buyers. On the first day of trial, the buyers and seller settled, leaving the action as one between the seller and buyers, on the one hand, and the brokers, on the other. Following a bench trial, the buyers recovered a compensatory judgment of $5,965 and punitive damages of $25,000; the seller recovered a compensatory award of $23,108.88 plus costs of $20,000. In both instances, the judgment was against the brokers. The brokers appealed; Court reverse.

Betty Jones took an unpaid medical leave from her job for hip replacement surgery. When she had not come back to work five months later, the employer fired her. Jones sued, claiming her employer discriminated against her in violation of the California Fair Employment and Family Rights Acts, failed to accommodate her disability, and breached an implied or express oral contract not to terminate her employment except for good cause. The employer moved for and the trial court granted summary adjudication of each claim. We conclude the court properly granted summary adjudication on the contract claims, because Joness employment was indisputably at will. But summary adjudication should not have been granted on the statutory causes of action because a disputed material fact exists: whether the employer had a policy that upon expiration of the permitted leave period the employee had to return to work at full capacity (that is, without any accommodation). The order granting summary adjudication of Joness first, second, and third causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, and violation of the CFRA are reversed. The order granting summary adjudication on the fourth and fifth causes of action for breach of an implied or oral contract is affirmed.

This is an appeal from an order granting a judgment creditors motion for an order for the sale of the judgment debtors property, with the judgment debtor contending the trial court should have found he was entitled to a homestead exemption. Court originally rejected this claim for want of an adequate record (In re Marriage of Parvizian (Apr. 23, 2008, B197281) [nonpub. opn.]), then granted rehearing when the missing part of the record was located. Having now considered the issue on its merits, Court once again affirm the trial courts order.

Michael Anthony Stewart appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of petty theft with an admission that he suffered a prior theft-related conviction (Pen. Code, 666), and with a court finding that he suffered a prior felony conviction for which he served a separate prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced him to prison for three years. Appellant claims trial errors occurred. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Alan Wayne brought an action against respondent DHL Worldwide Express, Inc. (DHL), on the ground that DHL is unlawfully selling insurance. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment brought by DHL. Court agree with the trial court that Wayne cannot show that he was injured and that he therefore lacks standing. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Johnny Kinney appeals from the trial courts order denying his petition to present a late claim for damages against respondent County of Los Angeles (the County). Because the late-claim application was untimely filed and appellant failed to demonstrate any mistake of law or excusable neglect, Court affirm.

The victim of an assault and robbery identified plaintiff and appellant Timothy J. (the minor) as one of four males who were present during the incident. Although it was undisputed that the minor did not actively engage in the assault or the robbery, he was convicted of second degree robbery on an aiding and abetting theory.
On appeal, the minor contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that he committed robbery. According to the minor, mere presence at the crime scene and failure to take steps to prevent the crime are insufficient to support a finding that he aided and abetted the robbery. We hold that the evidence showing the minor was present at the crime scene with a group of individuals just prior to the attack, when combined with the evidence of his presence during the incident and his flight with one of the assailants was sufficient to support the juvenile courts finding that the minor aided and abetted the robbery. Court therefore affirm the order of the juvenile court.