CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Rachel W. is the mother of four-year-old Justin W., a dependent child of the juvenile court. Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. She contends that the juvenile court denied her right to due process by limiting cross-examination of a caseworker, and that two of the courts key findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Court disagree and affirm because the limitation on cross examination was minor and did not violate due process, and because substantial evidence supports the two challenged findings.

Martha P. (mother) and Efrain L. (father) (collectively, parents) appeal from the juvenile courts orders to (1) deny their request for a bonding study, and (2) terminate their parental rights with respect to minors Angelica L., Lizbeth L., and Z. L. after finding the so-called sibling exception to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 inapplicable. Additionally, mother appeals from the juvenile courts order to deny her petitions under section 388 requesting modification of a prior order that terminated reunification services with respect to Angelica and Lizbeth, denied services with respect to Z., and set a permanency planning hearing with respect to all three girls. Court affirm.

From a contentious marital dissolution and custody dispute between appellant James Dunn and his then wife arose this dispute between Dunn and respondent Lawrence A. Moskowitz, an attorney specializing in family law who represented Dunns ex wife in the dissolution action. After a custody evaluation heavily favored Dunns ex wife, Dunn began distributing articles attacking Moskowitz, prompting Moskowitz to petition for a restraining order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. Dunn opposed the issuance of the restraining order on the basis that the requested order violated his right to free speech. Dunn also filed a special motion to strike the petition pursuant to section 425.16, arguing that the petition arose from activities that were protected by his right to free speech. The trial court ruled in Moskowitzs favor on both matters, issuing a restraining order and weeks later denying Dunns motion to strike. Dunn timely appealed from both orders. Court affirm.

Appellant Desean W. appeals from an order of commitment after a sustained finding that he committed the felony offense of assault by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code, section 245, subdivision (a)(1). The court placed appellant on probation and committed him to the Log Cabin Ranch School for a term of confinement not to exceed six years two months. Appellants sole contention on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile courts finding that he committed acts constituting a forcible assault. Court disagree, and accordingly, affirm the order of commitment.

Counsel for defendant Daniel W. Wesnidge has filed an opening brief in which he raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel represents that defendant has been apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has not filed a brief. Court have conducted the review requested by counsel, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

Petitioner and appellant John Heubeck (husband) appeals from the July 15, 2005, order modifying a prior order regarding child support and attorneys fees to be paid to respondent Milagros Heubeck (wife). Husband contends the trial court: (1) lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the prior order because it did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a); (2) erred in making the order retroactive; (3) failed to consider the parties current income and ability to pay; (4) incorrectly calculated husbands net disposable income; (5) did not consider husbands circumstances and station in life when calculating child support; (6) erred in awarding an advancement of attorneys fees; and (7) refused to issue a written statement of decision. Except for ordering child support retroactive to a certain date, Court affirm the trial courts rulings.

Kristen Tinker, appeals from a post-judgment order[1]in favor of her former spouse, Mark Tinker: reducing the amount of spousalsupport paid to her from $25,000 to $20,000 per month; setting a cut-off date for spousal support of December 31, 2007; and thereafter retaining jurisdiction to reinstate spousal support. Court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in: finding changed circumstances were present that warranted reconsidering the level of spousal support Mark[2]must pay; reducing the spousal support amount with a December 31, 2007 cutoff date; and denying Kristins new trial motion. Court therefore affirm the orders under review.

Ronald Jones, doing business as Icon Development, sued Bernice Johnson in a dispute arising out of some construction work that Jones performed on Johnsons home. Johnson cross-complained against Jones. After a jury trial, the court entered judgment against Jones on all of his claims, and in favor of Johnson on one of her claims, awarding her $45,000 plus interest and costs. Jones appeals. Court reverse in part.

Appellant Guillermo Andrade was charged by information with felony resisting an executive officer by threat or violence (Pen. Code, 69),[1] felony false imprisonment ( 236), misdemeanor battery (of cohabitant) ( 243, subd. (e)(1)), and misdemeanor child cruelty by endangering health ( 273a, subd. (b)). At the close of testimony, the People moved to dismiss the charge of felony resisting an officer ( 69) and amend the information to include a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest. ( 148.) The court granted the motion. The jury found appellant guilty of misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1)) and misdemeanor child cruelty by endangering health ( 273a, subd. (b)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for 48 months. As a condition of probation, appellant was required to serve 45 days in county jail. Appellant alleges the court committed instructional error by failing to adequately define the terms "care or custody" and erred by using the CALJIC, rather than CALCRIM, jury instructions. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant, Michael Grandberry, appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for two counts each of attempted premeditated murder, discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, and assault by means of an assault weapon, with firearm and gang enhancements (Pen. Code, 664/187, 12034, 245, subd. (a)(3), 12022.53, 186.22.) Sentenced to state prison for 78 years to life, Grandberry claims there was trial and sentencing error.
The judgment is affirmed.

William Jackson (who is not a party to this appeal) sought a restraining order prohibiting harassment, against appellant Roslyn Darling. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued such an order. The judgment is affirmed.

Earl Stanley Tate appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, 12280, subd. (b)) and possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) while personally armed with a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c). Appellant entered the change of plea after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, 1538.5.) He was sentenced to six years eight months state prison and ordered to pay a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.5, subd. (a)), a $1,200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $1,200 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, 1202.45). Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.

Leonardo Serrano was convicted of two counts of selling or transporting heroin and one count of possession of heroin for sale, with true findings on weight allegations ancillary to all three counts. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a), 11351, 11352.5, subds. (1), (2), Pen. Code, 1203.07, subds. (a)(1), (2).) Serrano was sentenced to state prison for a term of four years (four years on one of the sale counts, with concurrent terms on the other sale count (four years) and the possession count (three years)). He appeals, challenging an evidentiary ruling, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the weight enhancements, and his concurrent sentence on the possession count on the ground that it should have been stayed. (Pen. Code, 654.) Court reject his claims of error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant, Edwin Ernesto Torres, appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for perjury (Pen. Code, 118). Sentenced to state prison for two years, Torres contends an error in the abstract of judgment must be corrected. Because the trial court has already amended the abstract of judgment, Court dismiss this appeal as moot.