CA Unpub Decisions

On July 18, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against John Fraser under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.)[1] The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on July 29, 1997, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

On July 18, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against Michael Starrett under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on September 21, 2005, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

On July 18, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against Elijah Lopez under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.)[1] The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on July 16, 2003, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

On July 18, 2007, without trial, the superior court issued a retroactive order of commitment against Kenneth Dale Wallace under the new provisions of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) The order committed him to an indeterminate term of commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) commencing on February 5, 1999, the date of his original commitment. Appellant challenges the retroactive commitment order on a variety of grounds, both constitutional and statutory. Court reverse.

After a preliminary hearing, the magistrate held defendant to answer for one count of felony child abuse. (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a).)[1] Defendant filed a section 995 motion to set aside the information, alleging probable cause failed to support the charge. The trial court granted defendants motion, determining that there was no probable cause that defendant acted with the requisite culpable state of mind. The People appeal. Court find that no evidence supported the contention that defendant acted with criminal negligence and, therefore, affirm the judgment below.

Contending that the juvenile court abused its discretion in refusing to extend reunification services, Nicole M. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ to compel the lower court to vacate its order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Court conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion and accordingly deny the petition.

Appellant Gerald Anthony Davis was convicted by jury trial of five counts of second degree burglary in violation of Penal Code[1]section 460, subdivision (b). The jury, in a bifurcated proceeding, found as to each count that Davis had suffered a prior conviction of section 243, subdivision (c) (battery of custodial officer), for which he served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). !(CT 148-150)! The trial court sentenced Davis to the upper term of three years on count one, plus a consecutive one-year enhancement for the prior prison term. In addition, the court sentenced Davis to consecutive eight-month sentences for each of the remaining counts, for a total term of six years eight months. !(CT 239-243)! The facts of the case are not relevant to the issues on appeal. In summary, Davis committed the offenses by entering various grocery stores and stealing wallets out of the purses of unsuspecting shoppers.

Appellant Ronnie H. (Father) appeals the juvenile courts order denying Father visitation with his son, Raymond H. Father contends the failure by the Department of Children and Family Services (the department) to conduct the required assessment of Raymond estopped the department from denying Father visitation. Court affirm the juvenile courts orders.

Dennis Allen Nylander was charged with one count of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14, in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). He was convicted by a jury based largely upon the testimony of the minor victim, Mariah and sentenced to eight years in prison. He appeals his conviction on the basis he was erroneously denied access to records of Mariahs postcrime counseling sessions with two mental health professionals. Court have reviewed those records, as did the trial court, and conclude the trial court was correct in finding them devoid of any material that might have had a bearing upon appellants trial. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Alex Phu appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of assault likely to produce great bodily injury and street terrorism. Phu argues the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on street terrorisms required elements. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendants The Seitz Family Partnership, L.P., James Seitz, Moree (Seitz) Hasty, and Kory Seitz (collectively Seitz) appeal from an order denying their special motion to strike the malicious prosecution complaint of plaintiff Cal-Nan Horizon Quest, Inc. (Cal-Nan) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP motion; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated). Seitz contends, among other things, that Cal-Nan did not show the probability of prevailing on the action or malice. Court agree and reverse.

Defendants The Seitz Family Partnership, L.P. (Seitz partnership), James F. Seitz, Moree (Seitz) Hasty, and Kory Seitz (sometimes collectively the Seitzes) appeal from an order denying their special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP motion; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated) the complaint for malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress filed by plaintiff Frank Jaksch, Sr. They contend, among other things, that Jaksch failed to show the probability of prevailing on any of the causes of action. Court reverse.

Defendants The Seitz Family Partnership, L.P. and James Seitz (collectively Seitz) appeal from an order denying their special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP motion; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated) the complaint for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress filed by plaintiff Frank Jaksch, Jr. Seitz contends, among other things, that Jaksch failed to show the probability of prevailing on any of the causes of action. Court agree and reverse.

Appellant Mordecai Tendler obtained a pre-filing discovery order in Ohio to aid in his effort to learn the identities of the anonymous individuals who had posted statements about him on the Internet that he believed were defamatory. Respondents, who we will refer to as the Does, are the anonymous individuals who posted those statements. When Google, the subject of Tendlers discovery order, refused to comply with Ohio subpoenas, Tendler filed a request for subpoenas in Santa Clara County Superior Court premised on the Ohio discovery order. The Does filed a motion to quash and a Code of Civil Procedure section[1] 425.16 motion to strike. Although Tendler withdrew his request for subpoenas, the Does proceeded on their section 425.16 motion to strike. The superior court granted the Does section 425.16 motion to strike, and awarded them their attorneys fees. On appeal, Court conclude that a request for subpoenas does not fall within section 425.16, and therefore the superior court erred in granting the motion and in awarding attorneys fees.