CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Richard R. Lane appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate and writ of administrative mandate entered in favor of respondent California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Lane seeks to require CalPERS to calculate his service retirement benefit by dividing his final compensation by seven and one half months, the period he actually worked, rather than 12 months. Court conclude that CalPERS has properly calculated Lanes retirement benefit in accordance with Government Code section 20035, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 20035(a)) and will affirm.

Appellant Richard R. Lane appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate and writ of administrative mandate entered in favor of respondent California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Lane seeks to require CalPERS to calculate his service retirement benefit by dividing his final compensation by seven and one half months, the period he actually worked, rather than 12 months. Court conclude that CalPERS has properly calculated Lanes retirement benefit in accordance with Government Code section 20035, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 20035(a)) and will affirm.

The trial court found that defendant Francisco Torres violated his probation and ordered him to serve a previously imposed, but suspended, three-year prison sentence. On appeal, defendant contends that his due process rights were violated because he was not able to cross-examine an adverse witness (his brother Rafael Torres) at his probation revocation hearing. As explained below, Court find that the hearsay statements of Rafael Torres were admitted in error and that the error was prejudicial.

Following the trial court's sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, plaintiff Christopher Griffith appeals from a dismissal of his first amended complaint, which alleged that defendant Monterey County Sheriff's Department (the County) intentionally exposed him to asbestos at the Monterey County Courthouse.
The County successfully demurred. The County contended that it is immune from liability under Government Code sections 815 and 844.6. In addition, plaintiff had failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). The judgment is affirmed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

Defendant appeals from the sentence imposed following her no contest pleas and admissions in Santa Clara Superior Court case number BB623967 and the revocation of her probation in Santa Clara Superior Court case number BB515442. The trial court granted a certificate of probable cause in each case. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days and she has submitted two letters to this court dated March 3, 2008, and March 7, 2008, alleging prosecutorial bias, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, sentencing error under Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (Cunningham) and dissatisfaction with appellate counsel. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we have reviewed the entire record and defendants letters, and we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Therefore, Court affirm.

This case stems from remodeling work defendant Claude Rick Givens May III did for homeowners Suzanne Micha Sommer and Steven Sommer. Later charged with four counts for unlicensed contracting, May pled guilty to a misdemeanor count of contracting without a license (Bus. & Prof. Code, 7028; count two), with other counts dismissed and any restitutionpotentially as much as $123,000 as then sought by the Sommersto be set after a hearing. The court suspended imposition of sentence, granted probation and set the restitution hearing.
This appeal by May challenges a January 31, 2007, order to pay the Sommers restitution and interest totaling $98,339 (Pen. Code, 1202.4), in monthly payments of $4,000. May claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) creating a windfall by awarding losses plus a full refund, (2) declining to credit him with $10,000 for a construction bond payment the Sommers received, (3) awarding them $5,000 for lost income, and (4) ordering monthly payments without determining his ability to pay. Court reverse and remand on point (1), otherwise affirm the award, and find issue (4) moot given the need for remand.

We have before us the fourth appeal in this action, which still has yet to proceed beyond the point of valid service of process upon respondent. Appellants argue that their cross-complaint for express and implied indemnity against respondent was erroneously dismissed for failure to serve summons and complaint upon him within the three-year period specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210, subdivision (a).[1] We agree with appellants that the three-year period was tolled pursuant to section 583.240, and did not lapse. Court also conclude that respondent made a general appearance in the action by pursuing a motion for restitution against appellants, and thereby effectively placed himself within the personal jurisdiction of the court. Court therefore reverse the judgment that dismissed appellants cross-complaint, and direct respondent to file an answer or other responsive pleading with 20 days of the issuance of the remittitur.

After the superior court denied his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Jesse Allen Kuntz pleaded no contest to two counts of possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) and one count of possession of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 12020). The trial court found defendant guilty of those charges, suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. Court reverse, finding the court erred in denying the motion to suppress.

Appellant Boley Wayne Thomas appeals from his conviction by a jury of corporal injury to his spouse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor false imprisonment ( 236). He challenges his conviction on the ground that the court erred in admitting evidence of prior incidents of domestic violence. Court affirm the judgment.

Ricardo F., a minor, appeals orders continuing him as a ward of the court and ordering placement for a maximum term of confinement of four years two months, entered after the juvenile court sustained allegations the minor had violated Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a), by carrying concealed upon his person a dirk or dagger. Court reverse.

Carlos Y., a minor, appeals orders continuing him as a ward of the court and ordering placement for a maximum term of confinement of four years eight months, entered after the juvenile court sustained allegations the minor had violated Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a), by carrying concealed upon his person a dirk or dagger. The orders continuing wardship and ordering the minors confinement are reversed.

Kuo-Liang Chen sued Lincoln Broadcasting Company (Lincoln), the owner of a television station, for defamation over a broadcast reporting that Taiwanese officials suspected Chen of posting terrorist threats against Taiwanese targets on the Internet. The trial court granted Lincolns special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Chen contends that the court erred in finding that he had not established a probability of prevailing on the merits of his defamation claim. Court affirm.

Marcus M. appealed from the juvenile courts order terminating parental rights to his son, James F., alleging error in appointing a guardian ad litem without inquiring about his competence and in failing to obtain a knowing waiver of his right to be present at the termination of parental rights hearing. This court previously concluded that the juvenile courts error in appointing a guardian ad litem without inquiring into Marcus M.s competence constituted a structural error requiring the reversal of the orders terminating his parental rights. On review, the California Supreme Court concluded that the error in the guardian ad litem appointment process was subject to harmless error analysis and was in fact harmless. (In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901.) On remand, Court consider the question of whether the failure to obtain a knowing waiver of Marcus M.s right to be present at the hearing at which parental rights were terminated requires reversal. Court conclude that this, too, was harmless error, and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

A modification decision.