CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals the juvenile court's orders that found true a supplemental petition alleging misdemeanor receiving stolen property and continued probation. Counsel has briefed no issues and asks that court review the record of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Court have reviewed the entire record and affirm.

This appeal arises out of the tragic death of a 14-year-old girl who was struck by an automobile along a road owned and maintained by the County of Ventura (" County" ). Her parents and estate sued the County alleging a dangerous condition of public property. The trial court granted the County's motion for nonsuit prior to the opening statement. (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 284-285.) Court affirm the ensuing judgment.

An electrical contractor terminated a communications equipment subcontractor from two large public works projects for urban transportation systems. The prime contractor then sued the subcontractor for breach of contract and related claims founded upon allegations of untimely and deficient performance. The subcontractor cross-complained for breach of contract and a score of other claims. The subcontractor maintained that it had duly performed the contracts and was wrongly terminated.
The judgment is affirmed.

Mother of two boys, born in 2001, and born in 2000, appeals from an order of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court, claiming the court erred by denying her petition to modify an order scheduling a hearing on a motion to terminate her parental rights, by terminating her parental rights, and by failing to provide notice as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Court held claims are without merit, and therefore affirm.

Counsel for appellant filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and in which he asked this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. This appeal followed appellant's plea of no contest, revocation of probation granted in an earlier case, and a subsequent sentence of four years in state prison.
Based upon our preliminary review, on September 25, 2006, court ordered further briefing on the following issues: â€

A jury convicted defendant of one count each of making criminal threats and stalking. Defendant admitted a prior serious felony conviction enhancement allegation. Sentenced to a determinate term of 11 years in state prison, defendant appeals.

Plaintiff sued defendant for defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after a letter appellant allegedly wrote was disseminated to community leaders, respondent's competitors, and his clients that alleged respondent had engaged in questionable business dealings with at least two school districts. Appellant filed a special motion to strike the lawsuit under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.The trial court denied the motion, concluding that appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that the letter was connected to a public issue. Court disagree and reverse and remand the matter to the trial court for its determination of whether respondent is able to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claims.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to six counts of committing forcible and nonforcible lewd acts on his daughter, and one count of making a criminal threat, as to which it was also alleged he personally used a firearm.
Appellant contends on appeal his statements during a police interrogation were unlawfully elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694] (Miranda), and were otherwise involuntary. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment after the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend on his civil rights action against defendants Ventura County Sheriff's Department, (collectively the County). Court conclude the trial court properly found that plaintiff's action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Court affirm.

The mother, appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental rights termination order. Mother contends the parental rights termination order must be reversed because of non-compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. The parties have stipulated to a limited reversal of the parental rights termination order to allow compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and to immediate remittitur issuance. court accept the parties' stipulation.

The mother, appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental rights termination order. Mother contends the parental rights termination order must be reversed because of non-compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. The parties have stipulated to a limited reversal of the parental rights termination order to allow compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and to immediate remittitur issuance. court accept the parties' stipulation.

The mother, appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental rights termination order. Mother contends the parental rights termination order must be reversed because of non-compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. The parties have stipulated to a limited reversal of the parental rights termination order to allow compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and to immediate remittitur issuance. Court accept the parties' stipulation.

The mother, appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental rights termination order. Mother contends the parental rights termination order must be reversed because of non-compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. The parties have stipulated to a limited reversal of the parental rights termination order to allow compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and to immediate remittitur issuance. Court accept the parties' stipulation.

Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights with respect to two childrens. Mother contends a single attorney could not adequately represent the interests of all four of her children involved in this case. Court conclude any error in failing to appoint separate counsel for two was harmless and affirm the order.