CA Unpub Decisions

Stevie H. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her young son and daughter.[1] She contends respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) failed to both: comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.); and establish it was likely the children would be adopted. On review, Court conditionally reverse the termination order in light of the ICWA notice violation. Otherwise, Court affirm the adoptability finding.

Plaintiffs Nicholas and Ekaterine Panoutsopoulos leased property from the Karsant Family Limited Partnership. On March 14, 2004, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Peter Karsant (Karsant), the managing general partner of the partnership, seeking damages for willful interference with quiet possession of business premises and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs later filed a petition under Civil Code section 1714.10, seeking leave to pursue causes of action for civil conspiracy between Karsant and his attorneys, Denise Chambliss, Susan Doyle and the Law Offices of Doyle & Associates (the attorneys). The trial court granted the petition.

In July of 2006, a jury once again[1]found defendant Thomas Alexander met the criteria for civil recommitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et. seq. (the SVPA). On the basis of that finding, the trial court ordered that defendant be recommitted to Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) for two years. He appeals, claiming evidentiary errors by the trial court and insufficiency of the evidence. Court find no reversible error and affirm.

A jury found Omar Yang Han and codefendant Cameron Gump guilty of first degree residential burglary (count 1; Pen. Code, 459) and found Han further guilty of receiving stolen property (count 2; 496, subd. (a)). The court granted Han five years probation, suspending imposition of sentence. Han appeals, claiming two instances of prejudicial instructional, as well as double punishment at sentencing in violation of section 654. Court reject his claims and affirm the judgment.

James Branscom, Jr., appeals contending the trial court erred when it denied his request to modify a trust. Court agree the requested modification was appropriate and reverse.

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of three counts of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a)), one count of first degree residential robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (a)), one count of false imprisonment by force (Pen. Code, 236, 237), and one count of felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)), with associated enhancements for personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b)), acting in concert with two or more persons in commission of the robbery (Pen. Code, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)), a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (b)-(i)), 1170.12), a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (a)), two separate prior state prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)), and parole ineligibility (Pen. Code, 1203, subd. (e)(4)). He was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 34 years and 4 months. His sole contention in this appeal is that one of the residential burglary convictions (Count 2) must be reversed for lack of evidence. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the conviction, and affirm the judgment.

A prison inmate assaulted a prison guard, causing him to miss work and incur medical and dental expenses. After the inmate pled guilty to the crime, the court ordered him to pay restitution to the prison for the workers compensation benefits the prison paid to the guard. Defendant argues the restitution order was unauthorized because the prison was not a direct victim of the crime. Court order the trial court to modify the restitution order to change the payee to the injured guard.

Daniel H. appeals from a disposition entered after the juvenile court found true allegations that he had committed forcible rape, (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2)) forcible sexual penetration ( 289, subd. (a)(1)), and sexual battery ( 243.4, subd. (a)). He contends the court erred because it failed to exercise its discretion to determine whether the sexual battery count was a felony or a misdemeanor. Court agree and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant Kevin R. (minor) first came to the attention of juvenile authorities in 2002. Since that time, he has been the subject of several petitions under the juvenile law and has spent time in foster care, boys ranch, and juvenile hall. After he was found in 2006 to have participated in a purse-snatching that injured the victim, and then attempted to escape from police custody, he was committed to the California Youth Authority, now known as the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The minor challenges his commitment, contending that the juvenile court did not consider his mental illness. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Anthony Nelson, a member of the San Francisco Police Department (Department), was charged with neglect of duty and use of unnecessary force by the Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) of the San Francisco Police Commission (Commission). The charges arose from Nelsons baton strike on a protester during demonstrations over the invasion of Iraq in 2003. After a lengthy evidentiary proceeding, the Commission rejected the charge of unnecessary use of force, but it concluded that Nelson had filed an intentionally false, self-exonerating report about the incident. Following the recommendation of the police chief, the Commission voted to terminate Nelson from the Department. Nelson argues that the evidence does not support the conclusion that he filed an intentionally false report, that he was deprived of due process in connection with the finding that his report was intentionally false, and that the Commission abused its discretion in terminating him. Court affirm.

Joe B. (father or Joe) is the alleged father of Wyatt. P.G. (mother) is Wyatts mother. The juvenile court had declared Wyatt a dependent of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g),[1]and removed him from mothers custody. Subsequently, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for mother and set a section 366.26 hearing. Father appeared for the first time and moved pursuant to section 388 to have Wyatt placed with him or to order reunification services for him. The court held a combined section 388 and section 366.26 hearing. It denied fathers section 388 petition and terminated parental rights for both mother and father.
On appeal, father challenges the denial of his section 388 petition and the order terminating his parental rights. He claims that he did not receive any notice of the dependency proceedings, which violated his due process rights. Mother separately appeals from the order terminating her parental rights, claiming that the court should have found that the beneficial relationship exception to terminating parental rights applies. Court are unpersuaded by either parents argument and affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from a judgment following his pleas of guilty and imposition of sentence.[1] 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 has advised defendant that he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to this courts attention. Court have not received any supplemental brief.We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

William Gordon Groza appeals from a final judgment entered after a guilty plea to a single count of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a).) His court appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner Jessica Pan (Pan) petitions this court for a writ of mandate, seeking to have us reverse the denial of her peremptory challenge against Commissioner Susan Jakubowski of the San Mateo Superior Court. Her challenge was denied in the superior court as untimely because the Commissioner had ruled on two ex parteapplications before the challenge was filed. As explained below, the challenge was timely and Court therefore issue a writ directing the superior court to vacate its order of January 15, 2008, denying petitioners peremptory challenge and to issue a new and different order granting it.