CA Unpub Decisions

Maria D. appeals from orders terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her daughter A.S. and son A.G..[1] Appellant contends the court abused its discretion when it denied her petition to regain custody of the children at the permanency planning stage. On review, Court affirm.

Mitchell and Marci Chait purchased a home in Laguna Beach from Charles and Nan Strauch. After the closing, they sued for breach of contract and misrepresentation relating to the condition of the home. The jury found entirely for the Strauchs. The Chaits now appeal, arguing a number of errors regarding the effect of a release and a lack of substantial evidence. Court find no error and affirm.

In December 2002, Jean P. LeTourneau filed a complaint against her former attorney, Mark C. Bailey and Bailey & Associates (Bailey) for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duties. What followed over the next several years was a tortuous series of demurrers, motions to strike, and amended pleadings that deleted, added, and relabeled causes of action, and shifted allegations from one cause of action to another. A motion in limine gutted what was left of the complaint after that process, and, finally, at the outset of trial, the trial court granted an oral motion for judgment on the pleadings against LeTourneau on her remaining cause of action for breach of oral contract. This appeal is from the resulting judgment.

Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, subdivision (c) (all further statutory references are to this code) prohibits the filing of litigation presented by a vexatious litigant unless the vexatious litigant first obtains an order from the presiding judge permitting it. Appellant Bruce Senator was declared to be a vexatious litigant in the San Joaquin County Superior Court in case No. CV020625 on September 15, 2003 and in case No. CV021123 on October 15, 2003. He did not obtain permission from the presiding justice of this division to file the appeal herein. Court find no merit in appellants appeal and deny his request for relief under section 473. Our previous order scheduling oral argument is vacated.

Defendants Christian Antonio Garcia and Sergio Omardiaz Alonso appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found them guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)).[1] The jury also found that each defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a), 1203, subd. (e)(3)) and committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) In a bifurcated proceeding, Alonso admitted the allegation that he had previously been convicted of a felony for which he had served a prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendants to 16 years in prison. On appeal, defendants contend: (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to CALCRIM No. 375; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement finding; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the expert witness to state his opinion that defendants committed the assault with the specific intent to assist in criminal conduct by gang members; (4) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting photographs of gang symbols and signs; and (5) the abstract of judgment should be amended. Court find no error requiring reversal and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Abel Alcaraz was convicted after a jury trial of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)); he was acquitted on the alternative count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496). He was sentenced to two years in prison. Defendant argues on appeal that he made a pretrial motion to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). He argues that he made this motion in connection with an additional motion to discharge his court-appointed attorney pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) and that the court committed reversible error by denying the Faretta motion that he claims to have made when he sought to discharge his counsel pursuant to Marsden. He argues further that the trial court erroneously admitted certain evidence that defendant had moved to have strickeni.e., the statement he allegedly made to an officer after his arrestbecause the police officer witness had no independent recollection of the statements and therefore the evidence lacked foundation. For the reasons below, Court conclude that there was no Faretta error and that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to strike. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant Richard Michael Martinez appeals from an order retroactively committing him to an indeterminate term of commitment (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6601.4, subd. (a))[1] as a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) ( 6600 et seq.). Defendant was first committed to a two-year term on February 24, 2000, and his commitment was extended for additional two-year terms thereafter. In 2007, while a petition to extend defendants most recent term of commitment was pending, the People brought a motion to retroactively convert his first commitment on February 24, 2000, from a two-year term of commitment to an indeterminate term. This petition was brought pursuant to amended section 6604.1, subdivision (a), which provides that an indeterminate term begins on the date the court issues the initial order of commitment. The trial court granted the petition, and imposed the indeterminate term retroactive to February 24, 2000, without a trial on the pending petition to extend his most recent term of commitment. The order committing defendant for an indeterminate term is reversed.

V.R. (mother), appeals from orders of the juvenile court adjudging her son, J.R., a dependent child of the court and bypassing reunification services for her. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300, 361.5, subd. (b).) Court appointed counsel to represent mother in this court.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. (See In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sade C.).) Mother now asks this court to independently review the record and also to follow the procedure set forth in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544, footnote 6 (Ben C.), by inviting mother to file her own supplemental brief. The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Childrens Services opposes the request, arguing that Ben C. does not require us to solicit supplemental briefs from appellants in dependency cases.
Court have read and considered it. Since neither mother nor her counsel has raised an arguable issue, Court dismiss the appeal.

Justin P. appeals from a disposition order placing him on probation in his mothers home. The People concede that the juvenile court erred by failing to expressly declare whether the sustained offenses were felonies or misdemeanors. Justins other argument on appeal is not ripe for review. Court remand for a declaration of the status of the offenses.

Appellants, Casa Colina Centers For Rehabilitation Foundation (Casa Colina), Estate Strategies, Inc. (Estate Strategies) and its president Richard Sorensen, appeal from an order denying their motions to compel arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., 1294, subd. (a).) The trial court impliedly found that arbitration of a consolidated action for elder financial abuse and a charitable trust accounting dispute would result in piecemeal litigation and the possibility of conflicting rulings. Court affirm. (Code Civ. Proc., 1281.2, subd. (c); Mercury Ins. Group v. Superior Court (1998) 19 Cal.4th 332, 349-350.)

Joshua Rosas appeals from the judgment following his conviction of making a criminal threat. (Pen. Code, 422.)[1] The court sentenced him to six years four months in state prison (a 16-month low term for the criminal threat, and a five-year section 667, subdivision (a)(1) prior felony offense enhancement) and ordered him to stay away from the victim. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court lacked authority to impose a stay away order. Court reverse the stay away order and otherwise affirm the judgment.

In this action for personal injuries arising from a fall on a bus, plaintiff and appellant Melvin Billups appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in favor of defendant and respondent Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). Billups contends the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting the opinion of the MTAs neurologist, Dr. Edwin Amos, regarding what might have caused Billups to fall. Billups further contends the opinion was irrelevant and lacked foundation. The MTA argues the judgment must be affirmed because Billups failed to show prejudicial error by an adequate record, in that the record does not contain the jury instructions. Court conclude the testimony was properly admitted and further conclude that the record is inadequate to demonstrate prejudicial error.

Elizabeth G. appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602)[1]entered following the juvenile courts finding she committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, 242/243, subd. (a)). She was placed at home on probation. Court affirm the juvenile courts order.

Jesus Lee Carreno appeals from his conviction by jury trial of two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 years of age. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. a.) He raises issues of instructional and sentencing error. Court affirm the conviction.