CA Unpub Decisions

Dorinda Barnes has filed two notices of appeal in this ongoing dissolution proceeding. This court has ordered that the two appeals be considered together for purposes of briefing, argument, and decision. Her first appeal (H026664) arises from the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside earlier orders. Her second appeal (H027557) challenges the court's prospective termination of spousal support of Dorinda by David.
As court explain below, the thrust of the first appeal is to challenge an earlier court order and not the court's denial of the motion to vacate. Since Dorinda did not appeal from this earlier appealable order, court conclude that she is barred from attacking it in this appeal. Her only real attack on the denial of the motion to set aside lacks merit. Dorinda's second appeal primarily claims that the termination of spousal support is unsupported by the evidence. Court conclude that her evidentiary arguments are foreclosed by her failure to provide a reporter's transcript of the hearing preceding the termination order. Court also reject her argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue this order. Finally, court deny her latest request for judicial notice and to take new evidence on appeal. Accordingly, court affirm the court's orders.

In this case, Landwatch Monterey County (Landwatch) claims that the approval of a subdivision project with a mitigated negative declaration (MND) violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, S 21000 et seq.)
Landwatch renews its claim, arguing that approving the Project with an MND, instead of preparing and EIR, violates CEQA because the Project may have an adverse impact: It may contribute to a severe groundwater overdraft in North Monterey County. Landwatch also claims that the Project violates the Monterey County General Plan and the North County Area Plan.
Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff brought a negligence action against defendant Christopher Todd Baca relating to a June 2000 vehicle collision. The jury found both plaintiff and defendant negligent and the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $292.05. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and contends that the court erred in denying her motion to exclude a videotaped deposition of defendant's expert and in denying her request to present a rebuttal expert. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant challenges an order directing him to make restitution to an insurance company for damage he caused to a car during an attempted flight from police. On appeal he contends that such an award is barred under the holding of People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226. Respondent concedes that the order was unauthorized. Accordingly, court strike the challenged order, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

On August 26, 2005, the Santa Cruz County District Attorney's Office filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 to declare David L., a minor, a ward of the court. The petition, as later amended, alleged five counts of felony vandalism and one count of possession of marijuana. (Pen. Code, S 594, subd. (a); Health and Saf. Code, S 11357, subd. (e).) After the minor was deemed eligible for deferred entry of judgment (S 790), he admitted all counts and was advised that he faced a maximum commitment of five years and eight months. The juvenile court then granted deferred judgment for two years.
On February 3, 2006, the district attorney filed a second petition. As amended, it alleged five counts of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. (Health and Saf. Code, S 11357, subd. (b).)
On February 7, 2006, the minor denied the allegations in the second petition, and the court held a restitution hearing concerning the acts of vandalism. On February 22, 2006, the minor admitted two counts of possession, the other three were dismissed, deferred entry of judgment was revoked, the minor was declared a ward of the court, and the restitution hearing was concluded. The minor and other minors were found jointly and severally liable for (1) $3,900.00 for damage to a retaining wall owned by Catherine and Jeffery Thermond; and (2) $2,567.47 for damage to a train trestle and two retaining walls belonging to the City of Capitola (City).
The minor appeals from the restitution order. He claims the court abused its discretion in including in the amount of restitution to the City the cost of repainting a retaining wall a second time.
Court agree and reverse the restitution order.

The essential issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied wife's motion to dismiss.
Court conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination wife implicitly entered into an agreement with husband to waive the statutory five-year time limit within which a matter must be brought to trial. Accordingly, when wife brought a motion to dismiss the matter because trial began on a date beyond the five-year limitation period, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion.
Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

The juvenile court sustained charges of two counts of arson and one count of making a false police report against Jordan W., a minor. The minor was committed to the California Youth Authority.
On appeal, the minor contends the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that he committed the arson charged in count 1 of the petition. Disagreeing, Court affirm.

Defendants appeal from the trial court's judgment declaring the existence of an express easement across the edge of their property. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

In superior court case No. SCD197588, on April 7, 2006, Dean Hall entered negotiated guilty pleas to burglary (Pen. Code, S 459), grand theft using an access card (S 484g, subd. (a)), and unlawfully acquiring access card information (S 484e, subd. (d)). In case Nos. SCD197691 and SCD197919, on April 7, 2006, Hall entered negotiated guilty pleas to two counts of grand theft using an access card. The court sentenced Hall to prison for the two year middle term for grand theft in case No. SCD197919, with concurrent prison terms on the remaining convictions. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304.) The judgment is affirmed.

The mother of Carolina I., Armando M. and Alejandro M., appeals the judgment terminating her parents rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends (1) the juvenile court erred by not postponing the trial to obtain more current information, (2) there was insufficient evidence supporting the juvenile court's finding that the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time, and (3) the court erred by not applying the beneficial parent child relationship exception to adoption (S 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)).
The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant seeks writ review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The petition is denied.

As ringleader, defendant committed a string of burglaries and auto thefts, as well as various other crimes, within a three-month period in Moreno Valley. Defendant appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for 13 counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, S 459), eight counts of which someone was home when the burglaries occurred (S 667.5, subd. (c)(21)); two counts of second degree burglary (S 459); eight counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)); five counts of grand auto theft with a prior auto theft conviction (Veh. Code, S 10851, subd. (a), S 666.5, subd. (a)); being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)); possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health and Saf. Code, S 11378); possessing paraphernalia for ingesting narcotics (Health and Saf. Code, S 11364); and being under the influence of narcotics (Health and Saf. Code, S 11550, subd. (a)).
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support 11 of the 15 burglary convictions since there was no evidence he entered the houses; there was insufficient evidence to support three of the five grand theft auto convictions and one of the convictions for receiving stolen property; and the court should have granted a mistrial based on jury deliberations misconduct. Court reject defendant's contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from an order of recommitment after a jury determined he remains a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 6600 et seq.)
Defendant challenges the order on the ground the People failed to prove defendant suffered at least two qualifying convictions. Defendant further contends that the trial judge improperly acted as an advocate for the prosecution and committed prejudicial error by allowing the prosecution's experts to testify regarding legal issues.
Court conclude defendant is collaterally estopped from contesting for the first time in the instant SVP proceedings the two predicate convictions. As to defendant's other contentions, court conclude there was no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment.