CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Nickles Dobbyn was convicted after jury trial of one count of auto theft. In a bifurcated court trial, the trial court found that Dobbyn had two prior felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code[1]section 1203, subdivision (e)(4); a prior auto theft conviction within the meaning of section 666.5; and two auto theft and one burglary convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Dobbyn was sentenced in this case to a six year prison term (the upper term of three years, plus one year for each of the three section 667.5 priors). A sentence in a separate unrelated case brought Dobbyns total term to nine years. The judgment is affirmed.

Ralph S. appeals from a June 2007 order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to his five year old son, R.S. Appellant contends the court erred by failing to find that termination would be detrimental to R.S. either on account of his parental/child relationship or because adoption would substantially interfere with the childs sibling relationship. On review, Court conclude the court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.

Rosa S. appeals from a June 2007 order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her five-year-old son, R.S. Appellant contends the court erred by failing to find that termination would be detrimental to R.S. either on account of her parental/child relationship or because adoption would substantially interfere with the childs sibling relationship. On review, Court conclude the court did not abuse its discretion and will affirm.

On June 6, 2006, appellant, Marcos G., admitted allegations filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, that he vandalized property valued under $400 (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a)) for the purpose of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (d)), received stolen property, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)), and drove a vehicle without a license (Veh. Code, 12500, subd. (a)). The court found count one to be a felony. At the conclusion of the disposition hearing on July 18, 2006, the juvenile court declared Marcos a ward of the court and placed him on probation. The judgment is affirmed.

Daniel S. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to his daughter, Emily S.[1] He contends the court erred at an earlier stage of the proceedings when it determined the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) did not apply. On review, Court affirm.

St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) paid money to settle a personal injury lawsuit. Travelers then filed an indemnity claim against Mark Davis Masonry, Inc. (MDM), a party that had contracted with Travelerss insured to perform masonry and scaffolding work on a project for which the insured was the general contractor; the collapse of the scaffolding had caused the injuries that were the subject of the underlying case. After Travelers and MDM had filed cross‑motions for summary adjudication in the indemnity case, MDM moved for leave to amend its answer to assert an affirmative defense based on Colorados statute of limitations, arguing the contract between the insured and MDM contained a Colorado choice of law provision. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and prejudicial to Travelers.

Defendants Elizabeth McMahon and Arnold A. McMahon (the McMahons) appeal from an order denying their anti SLAPP motion to strike libel and invasion of privacy causes of action asserted by plaintiff Peters & Freedman LLP (the law firm). The causes of action are not subject to the anti SLAPP statute because the allegedly defamatory statements do not concern issues under official review or issues of public interest. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (e).) Court affirm.

Defendant was convicted on two felony counts arising from an altercation with his former girlfriends current boyfriend and on two subsequent counts of failure to appear. He argues that after the trial, there was a prima facie case of jury misconduct and that his motion to release juror information should have been granted. He also claims there was insufficient evidence to support the two counts of failure to appear. Court disagree and affirm.

Plaintiffs Mark Harrison, Leslie Crouch Floyd, Lisa Chan Miller, and Edwin Garcia appeal from the denial of class certification of their wage and hour action against their former employer, defendant Islands Restaurants. Plaintiffs contend the court misapplied the law in several ways. Court disagree and affirm the order denying class certification.

Defendants Elizabeth McMahon and Arnold A. McMahon (the McMahons) appeal from an order denying their special motion to strike libel and invasion of privacy causes of action asserted by plaintiff Jeffrey R. Pratt. The McMahons fail to show the allegedly defamatory statements are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (e).) Court affirm.

Miguel C., Sr. (Father), appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating his parental rights as to now 16 year old Miguel C. and 13 year old Rodrigo C. The juvenile court previously found Father had fatally shot Miguel and Rodrigos mother. This is the third time this case has come before this court. Father challenges the order terminating his parental rights on the grounds (1) substantial evidence does not show by clear and convincing evidence that Miguel and Rodrigo were adoptable, and (2) the juvenile court erred by requiring Father to share a Spanish language interpreter with Miguel and Rodrigos maternal grandparents (the grandparents) during a portion of the permanency hearing. Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Joshua Thomas Satterfield of second degree robbery and the trial court found true that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony for purposes of the Three Strikes law and a prior prison term for purposes of a one-year sentence enhancement. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his (1) request to challenge photographic lineup identifications outside the presence of the jury, (2) request for discovery of a witnesss medical records, and (3) motion for a new trial grounded upon jury misconduct and a lack of jury unanimity. In a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we ordered considered with the appeal, defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel grounded on trial counsels withdrawal and failure to renew a motion for mistrial. Court disagree with defendants appellate claims and affirm the judgment. Court also dispose of the habeas corpus petition by separate order filed this day.

Defendant Betsey Warren Lebbos, a disbarred attorney, was charged by indictment with two counts of unauthorized practice of law. (Bus. & Prof. Code, 6126, subd. (b).) The jury found her guilty as charged. On appeal, defendant contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and that the trial court made several evidentiary and instructional errors. Court find no reversible error and affirm the judgment.

In this family law matter, petitioner Larry A. Peterson (father) appeals from an order requiring him to reimburse respondent Jeanette Weiss (mother) two-thirds of the private school tuition she paid on behalf of their sons for the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 school years. We conclude that the award is improper to the extent it requires reimbursement for expenses incurred prior to the date mother filed her first motion to modify child support. We shall reverse and remand that matter to the trial court to recalculate the reimbursement. Father also appeals from the trial courts order modifying the parties previous 50-50 child custody arrangement. Father has failed to demonstrate error on that point. Accordingly, Court affirm that order.