500 matching results for "ravimor":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Objector and appellant Anna Spataro, appearing in propria persona, appeals the August 25, 2014 order (August 25 order) of the trial court granting the verified petition (petition) of petitioner and respondent Ocean Windows Owners Association (Association or petitioner) to reduce the required voting percentage of its members in order to amend the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the Association that were recorded on December 20, 1972 (original CC&R's).
Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in granting under Civil Code section[1] 4275 the petition because there was "nothing in the record that suggest[ed] that the changes [to the CC&R's] proposed by the [Association] . . . were necessary for the good of the community . . . ." As we explain, because the record shows the court properly exercised its discretion in finding the Association complied with both the procedural and the substantive requirements of section 4275, including the requi |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appointed counsel for defendant William Turnbull asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Danielle C., mother of minors Mia C. and Leila C., appeals from juvenile courtorders terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)[1]Joseph K., father of Leila, also appeals from the order pertaining to Leila.
Mother contends (1) although a challenge to the denial of reunification services would normally be barred at this stage of the proceeding, mother should be permitted to challenge the denial because she was not informed of the right to seek appellate review by writ petition; (2) the juvenile court erred in denying reunification services because there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that mother did not make reasonable efforts to treatthe problems that led to aprior termination of services; and (3)the orders terminating parental rights should be reversed because the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Joseph K., w |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Robert Alan Humphreys pleaded guilty to misdemeanor infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant. The trial court placed defendant on probation subject to various terms and conditions, including that he not have any electronic contact with the victim and that he make his electronic devices available for inspectionby providing his passwords or unlock codes.
Defendant now challenges the probation condition requiring him to provide his electronic passwords or unlock codes, arguing it is not reasonably related to defendant’s crime, use of electronic devices is not criminal, the condition is not reasonably related to preventing future criminality, and it is overbroad.Finding no merit in defendant’s arguments, we will affirm the judgment. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
eonard Ochoa appeals the order determining him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and committing him to the California Department of Mental Health (now State Department of State Hospitals) for treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2962et seq.)[1]We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On March 9, 2017, weadvised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.(See People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304.) On March 17, 2017, we received a supplemental brief from appellant stating, among other things, that he is not violent and does not pose a substantial danger to others.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted appellant Julian Ayala Perez guilty of second degree robbery (count 1; Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c)),[1] with a finding he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The jury found Perez not guilty of a charge of assault with a firearm involving the same victim (count 2; § 245, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court sentenced Perez to a low term of two years for the robbery, plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement. On appeal, Perez’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Minor J.E. reported that her legal guardian, appellant A.R., physically abused her. The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over J.E. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)[1] and removed J.E. from A.R.’s care after finding that reasonable efforts had been made to forestall such removal. A.R. contends that neither the jurisdictional nor the reasonable efforts findings were supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that substantial evidence supported the court’s jurisdictional findings, and that A.R.’s challenge to the reasonable efforts findings has been mooted by J.E.’s subsequent return to her care. Accordingly, we affirm the jurisdictional order and dismiss as moot A.R.’s appeal of the dispositional order.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted defendant Byron Montenegro (defendant) of felony arson for setting the mattress in his prison cell on fire. Defendant’s appointed attorney on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 that raised no issues and asked us to independently review the record. This court invited defendant to personally submit a supplemental brief and he has done so, presenting ten contentions (without citation to the record or pertinent authority) that in his view warrant reversal. In the paragraphs that follow, we summarize the facts and explain why we reject defendant’s contentions.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Tom D. Soumas, individually, and Tom D. Soumas and Barbara L. Soumas, as co-trustees of the Soumas Family Trust, appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of Wolfe Air Aviation, Ltd., Hugh E. McColgan and McColgan & Vanni to the complaint for damages without leave to amend.[1]The action is the latest incarnation of a protracted dispute over a 1995 money judgment in an action for breach of contract. We affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiffs, Wei Hao and Faxue Gong, appeal from a summary judgment. Plaintiffs sued defendants, L.F. George Properties Corporation, George Lam, and Millbrae Paradise, LLC for:Labor Code violations; a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; wrongful termination;false imprisonment; negligent hiring; negligence; and intentional and negligent emotional distress infliction. Defendants moved for summary judgment or, as to each individual cause of action, summary adjudication of issues. Defendants argued: the Labor Code causes of action had no merit because there was no evidence they were plaintiffs’ employers; there was no evidence to support the false imprisonment claims; and plaintiffs’ tort claims were barred because they filed worker’s compensation claims. Defendants contended worker’s compensation was plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy for the tort claims. Defendants’ summary judgment motion was granted in its entirety.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiffs and appellants are writers and producers who entered into a profit participation agreement with defendant and respondent Walt Disney Pictures regarding their work on the television series, Home Improvement. The parties’ agreement includes an “incontestability” clause, which requires a participant to object in specific detail to Disney’s quarterly participation statements within 24 months after the date sent, and to initiate a legal action within six months after the expiration of that 24-month period. In July 2008, following an audit of Disney’s books of account, the producers objected to the participation statements that were sent between June 2001 and March 2006. After Disney rejected the objections as untimely, the producers filed this action, alleging that Disney failed to properly account for and pay them the amounts owed under the parties’ agreement. The trial court granted Disney’s motion for summary adjudication on the ground that the producers’ c
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Ronald King appeals from his judgment of conviction of one count of first degree murder with special circumstance findings (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), two counts of first degree robbery (§ 211), one count of identity theft (§ 530.5), one count of second degree burglary (§ 459), and one count of first degree burglary (§ 459). Among other arguments, King asserts that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the felony-murder special circumstance findings, (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of gang involvement in the crimes, and (3) the consecutive sentences imposed on the identity theft and second degree burglary counts violated section 654. We reverse in part and otherwise affirm the judgment as modified.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Lamar Harbison entered a plea of no contest to carrying an unregistered, loaded handgun and was placed on probation. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress on the grounds that he was illegally arrested and searched after the car in which he was a passenger was legally detained. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m).)[1]We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Following a preliminary hearing held on February 18, 2015, the Solano County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant Jarvis Daney Porter with the felony offense of assault on his fatherby means likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).[1]) The information included an allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
On April 1, 2015, the criminal proceedings were suspended after defendant’s trial counsel informed the court that he had a doubt as to defendant’s competency to stand trial. (§ 1368.) Four weeks later, on April 28, 2015, the trial court declared defendantnot competent to stand trial and several months later on August 31, 2015, the trial court reinstated the criminal proceedings after explaining its reasons for declaring that defendant’s competency had been restored. |