CA Unpub Decisions

Imprisoned defendant's only claim on appeal is that the trial court failed to give him credit against his prison term for time he served and for which he received credit in a separate misdemeanor case. Court affirms the judgment.

A criminal law decision regarding assault with a semiautomatic firearm, discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle, participating in a criminal street gang, and carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. Conviction vacated in part.

Plaintiff appeals pro se from the dismissal of her action following the grant of summary judgment to defendants. That summary judgment defeated plaintiff's claims of legal malpractice arising from defendants' representation of plaintiff in a personal injury action following her involvement in a multi-car traffic accident. Court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his action for breach of contract against defendant. after plaintiff failed to post the security the court ordered because he is a vexatious litigant and there is not a reasonable probability plaintiff will prevail.

The mother of minor seeks extraordinary writ relief under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26, subdivision (l). Appellant challenges the juvenile court order terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Court have reviewed the petition on its merits and deny it.

A jury found defendant guilty of carrying a loaded firearm within a public place, possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer, carrying a concealed weapon, and participating in a criminal street gang. Court reject defendant's contentions, and affirm the judgment.

Following the denial of appellants motion to suppress evidence, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to possession of a firearm by an ex-felon. Appellant also admitted he had been previously convicted of two serious and/or violent felonies within the meaning of the three strikes law. The court struck one of the prior convictions pursuant to section 1385, and sentenced appellant to two years, doubled to four under the three strikes law.
On appeal, appellant contends, under various theories, that the trial court erred in denying his section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence. Court disagree and affirm.

Petitioner in pro. per. seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter S. Court grant the petition.

Defendant appeals, claiming the lawsuit is untimely because plaintiff failed to file it within 30 days after the bankruptcy court issued notice of his discharge. Court affirm. Since this case involves an independent action to enforce a judgment rather than an application to renew the original judgment, both state and federal law permit a tolling of the 10-year statute of limitations on plaintiff's action during the pendency of defendant's bankruptcy.

A modification decision.

This case is a juvenile dependency action in which mother appeals an order removing her daughter from her custody. Appellant maintains the court committed reversible error in its handling of two Marsden hearings, and during the Sara D. hearing at which the court appointed a guardian ad litem.

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, court of appeals reviewed the entire record and concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

Mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. Appellant contends reversal is required due to ineffective assistance of counsel in the early stages of the dependency proceedings and to the court's failure to comply with its duty to inquire about possible Indian heritage. While court reject appellant's first contention, court reverse and remand to permit the court to make the required Indian heritage inquiry.

Plaintiff sued defendant to establish a 50 percent interest in an airport shuttle service owned by defendant. Plaintiff alleged he had purchased an option to buy the interest in April 1992 and that defendant denied plaintiff had any interest in the business. Defendant, relying upon the doctrine of judicial estoppel and plaintiff's failure to list the option as an asset in his November 1992 bankruptcy petition, moved for judgment on the pleadings. Based upon the allegations in plaintiff's complaint and matters properly the subject of judicial notice, the trial court granted defendant's motion. Plaintiff, seeking a reversal of the judgment.