CA Unpub Decisions

A decision regarding juvenile court's order terminating family reunification services, and setting the underlying dependency proceeding for a parental rights termination hearing.

A decision regarding appeal from an order denying a motion to extend the forfeiture period for a bail bond. Appellant contends the trial court (1) erred in finding its motion was untimely and (2) abused its discretion in concluding Appellant failed to establish good cause for extending the forfeiture period. Court agrees and reverses.

A criminal law decision regarding forgery of a document, possession of methamphetamine, battery causing serious bodily injury, and annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18, a misdemeanor.

A decision regarding appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights.

A criminal law decision regarding lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14.

A decision regarding an appeal from orders of the juvenile court terminating parental rights.

A criminal law decision regarding residential burglary and vandalism.

Court agree with appellants that their causes of action are not barred by the statute of limitations, due to the operation of the equitable tolling doctrine. However, the court concludes that appellants failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits of either of their slander claims and that the trial court thus properly granted Respondent's anti-SLAPP motion.

A criminal law decision regarding forcible rape and forcible oral copulation.

A decision regarding a petition for injunction prohibiting civil harassment.

A criminal law decision regarding first degree murder.court reject arguments and affirm.

A criminal law decision regarding possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell, with enhancements for two prior convictions for possession.

A criminal law decision regarding a lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14.

The appeal follows remand to determine the truth of appellant's prior convictions. In this appeal, appellant raises for the first time an issue that could have been raised in his first appeal or in his retrial and resentencing, specifically, that an enhancement incorrectly referenced the wrong subdivision of a code section. Although court deem the issue forfeited, court correct the judgment to reflect the correct subdivision.