500 matching results for "ravimor":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Larry Firebaugh’s probation was revoked after he failed to complete a drug rehabilitation program ordered by the court. The previously imposed sentence of eight years eight months in state prison was then ordered executed. Defendant appeals that order, arguing that he “was denied his 14th Amendment due process protections when his probation was revoked without written notice of the claimed violation and a timely formal hearing providing him with the opportunity to present evidence in mitigation and in support of reinstatement and/or modification of the plea agreement.” We shall conclude that defendant forfeited his claims on appeal by failing to raise them below. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A.L. (mother) appeals orders of the juvenile court which terminated juvenile court dependency jurisdiction over her children, I.L. and S.L., minors under the juvenile court law, following a jurisdiction/disposition hearing. In jurisdiction exit orders, the court granted father custody of the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)(1).)[1] We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s counsel’s request for a continuance of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing when mother did not appear for that hearing, and 2) its decision to proceed to decide the merits in mother’s absence did not contravene her due process rights. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Albert Salinas Lara was charged in a felony information with one felony count of possession of a slungshot (Pen. Code, § 22210),[1] one misdemeanor count of petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)), one misdemeanor count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), one misdemeanor count of possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)), and one misdemeanor count of trespass (§ 602, subd. (m)). He was convicted by jury of all misdemeanor counts. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the felony count, which was later dismissed by the court pursuant to section 1385. Lara was sentenced to serve 365 days with presentence credits of 365 days. He filed a timely appeal.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Maria D. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s findings and orders regarding her daughter D.G. The court removed D.G. from mother’s custody and granted custody to D.G.’s incarcerated father Andres G. (Andres), who placed D.G. with her paternal grandmother. The court ordered no family reunification services for mother and terminated jurisdiction. We affirm the findings and orders.[1]
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Malcolm James Martin (defendant) appeals his conviction for first degree burglary. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On December 12, 2016, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
The prosecution evidence established that in the early morning hours of September 18, 2015, police were called to a residence to investigate a possible break-in. When the first officer arrived he observed defendant and his accomplice inside the residence disconnecting cables, moving musical instruments around, removing speakers from a basement music studio, and then taking those speakers upstairs to the second floor. Whe |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Priscilla M. (mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court denying her Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petition seeking return of her three children to her care or, in the alternative, unmonitored visitation. We conclude the juvenile court did not err in denying the petition, and thus we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A father appeals from a juvenile court’s family law order granting sole legal and physical custody of his three minor children to the children’s mother, and requiring that father’s visits be supervised. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 364.)[1] Finding that the father has failed to demonstrate that the juvenile court abused its discretion, we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
T.K. (aka Diana R.) (mother) appeals an order denying her visitation after the juvenile court declared her twin sons juvenile court dependents and transferred their legal and physical custody to their father. We find no abuse of discretion, and thus we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
John Steven Danner appeals after a jury convicted him of second degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and found true an allegation that he personally used a firearm in committing the offense (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). The trial court sentenced him to 40 years to life in state prison. Appellant contends (1) the court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence; (2) the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter; and (3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during his closing argument. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In this appeal, pro se litigant Satish Shetty continues his pattern of pursuing unmeritorious lawsuits.[1] He purchased real property from a homeowners’ association that had foreclosed on a lien for unpaid dues. Two weeks later, the property was auctioned pursuant to a purchase money deed of trust because the borrowers, who are not parties to this litigation, had defaulted on their loan obligation. Shetty has sued virtually everyone associated with the senior deed of trust.
Shetty asserts that he is a bona fide purchaser (BFP) who possesses “all rights, interest and title to the property.” In reality, he purchased property subject to a senior encumbrance. By law, Shetty had constructive knowledge of the trust deed recorded 10 years earlier. Despite the looming trustee’s sale, Shetty failed to pay the preexisting debt, and his interest was extinguished. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Shetty’s lawsuit after it sustained demurrers without l |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Alex Raskin (plaintiff) filed the present action against Armen Petrosyan (aka Armin Roberts) (defendant) and others on October 20, 2010, and filed the operative sixth amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The operative complaint alleged that defendant held himself out as an experienced art broker/dealer and persuaded plaintiff to purchase works of art for 10 to 20 times their actual value. The complaint asserted causes of action for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, intentional and negligent concealment, conversion, and rescission.
Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Raskin for breach of written contract and reasonable value of goods delivered. The cross-complaint asserted that plaintiff purchased approximately 108 paintings from defendant at a combined cost of over $6,000,000. After a series of disputes arose between plaintiff and defendant, the parties entered a “Mutual General Release” (general release) that purported to release each party from exist |
From CA Unpub Decisions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Hayden Zacky, Judge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Margarito Gonzalez. Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jesus Antonio Soto. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Corey J. Robins, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury found defendants Margarito Gonzalez and Jesus Soto (collectively defendants) guilty of home invasion robbery, first degree residential robbery, first degree residential burglary, and four counts of assault. On appeal, defendants argue: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery convictions; (2) Penal Co |
From CA Unpub Decisions
A modification decision.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Following the final breakup of what she has described as a physically and verbally abusive relationship with former boxing champion Floyd Mayweather, Jr., Shantel Jackson sued Mayweather for, among other claims, invasion of privacy (both public disclosure of private facts and false light portrayal), defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Those five causes of action were based, either entirely or in substantial part, on Mayweather’s social media postings about the termination of Jackson’s pregnancy and its relationship to the couple’s separation and his comments during a radio interview concerning the extent to which Jackson had undergone cosmetic surgery procedures. Mayweather filed a special motion to strike those causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16). The trial court denied the motion. We reverse that ruling with respect to Jackson’s claims for defamation and false light portrayal, as well
|