500 matching results for "abundy":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Hilda Allen appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to her first amended complaint without leave to amend. She contends the court erred because she stated viable causes of action based on the funding of her mortgage loan by an unidentified lender, and the trial court should have continued the demurrer hearing and granted leave to amend. We will affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Raymond M. Buddie and Kaia Balsz were married in 1996. They separated in 2008, and shortly thereafter Buddie filed a petition to dissolve the marriage. Following many court proceedings, in April 2010, the parties settled, but leaving some possible issues for later modification. In 2012 Buddie filed for modification of his permanent spousal support and child support obligations. In 2013 Balsz also filed for modification of both support orders, and also seeking other relief.
The matters came on for hearing beginning August 2013, and trial was held over eight days extending into May 2014, a trial the court described as a “new record for a DCSS [Department of Child Support Services] trial.” The court issued a 16-page statement of decision and judgment on reserved issues. Both Buddie and Balsz appeal, Buddie asserting two claims of error, and Balsz purporting to assert 14 claims of error, most of them taking issue with the court’s determinations of fact. We affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted defendant Bart Ricardo Guillen of 10 counts of lewd conduct on a child under the age of 14 and two counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure and found true a multiple victim allegation applicable to the lewd conduct counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 90 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends his misdemeanor indecent exposure convictions must be reversed because prosecution for those offenses was untimely. The Attorney General concedes that prosecution of the misdemeanors was time-barred. Because we accept that concession, we reverse defendant’s misdemeanor indecent exposure convictions, strike the sentence imposed for those offenses, and affirm the judgment as modified.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
S.C. (defendant) was a minor when the instant case commenced. Now an adult, he appeals from a juvenile court order finding he did not satisfactorily complete juvenile probation. He argues the court’s error thereby denied him the benefits of Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, which would have allowed the juvenile wardship petition against him to be dismissed. It is true defendant was denied the benefits of section 786, but it was due to his pleading guilty as an adult to felony burglary, not due to any court error. The juvenile court correctly determined defendant’s guilty plea was a “conviction” for purposes of section 786 and that defendant therefore did not satisfactorily complete juvenile probation. Accordingly we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Patricia Jean Nichols, aka Heaven J. Nichols, appeals from an order declaring her a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 391, et seq. The order came after Nichols waged a two and a half year campaign of repeated challenges to the validity of a restraining order obtained against her by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange (RCBO). Her arguments on appeal are largely a continuation of that effort.
However, the restraining order is not before us and consequently we cannot review either its validity or its propriety. Thus, we must disregard Nichols’ contention that the restraining order was improperly granted because the chief witness against her, Father Augustine Puchner, was her fiduciary, as well as her contention that in issuing the restraining order, the trial court failed to “apply the laws regarding sexual harassment and conspiracy.” |
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury found defendant guilty of one count of making a false bomb report. (Pen. Code, § 148.1, subd. (c).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found true that defendant was previously convicted of a serious and violent felony (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (b)) and had previously served a prior qualifying prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court struck the priors and imposed a two-year prison sentence, but suspended execution of the sentence in lieu of three years of formal probation.
The issue on appeal has nothing to do with the conviction or sentence per se. Rather, defendant contends the court erred by failing to hold a hearing pursuant to section 1368 to determine his mental competency to stand trial. He contends there was substantial evidence that he lacked competency. We disagree and affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appointed counsel for defendant Christopher Todd Ruschaupt asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded with a supplemental brief, in which he requests that we consider that at the time of his arrest he had been suffering from, and treated for, bipolar disorder for over one year. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appointed counsel for defendant Juan Carlos Barriga asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded with a supplemental brief, in which he contends the trial court erred in imposing a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) in case No. 4004060 because he was convicted before the effective dates of the statutes imposing the assessments. The People concede and we agree.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Pursuant to a negotiated plea in case No. F14902635, appellant James Matthew O’Neal pled no contest to one count of first degree burglary and was placed on three years’ formal probation. In case No. F16903582, pursuant to a negotiated plea, O’Neal pled no contest to one count of receiving a stolen motor vehicle and one count of operating a “chop shop.” O’Neal was again placed on formal probation. On November 7, 2016, at a probation violation hearing, it was determined O’Neal violated probation, probation was revoked, and a term of imprisonment imposed.
O’Neal filed a timely notice of appeal on November 23, 2016. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Andres Moreno Vizcarra pled no contest to lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 by force (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)/count 2), lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)/count 6) and the continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (§ 288.5, subd. (a)/count 10). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Pedro Villa, Jr., stands convicted of attempted premeditated murder and assault with a deadly weapon. It also was found true that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of the attempted murder. Villa appealed his convictions and appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appointed counsel for defendant Henry Alvarado Rosales asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded with a petition for writ of mandate, which we denied on March 9, 2017, on the ground that defendant failed to explain why his appeal is an inadequate remedy. Having reviewed the record and finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
R.T. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders concerning her two oldest children, K.H. (age 12) and A.T. (age four). She contends reversal is required because: (1) substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s assumption of jurisdiction over K.H. or A.T.; (2) the dispositional orders terminating dependency jurisdiction are not supported by substantial evidence; (3) the dispositional order denying reunification services as to A.T. is not supported by substantial evidence; and (4) the dispositional order limiting mother’s educational rights was issued without proper notice and is not supported by any legal or factual basis. We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A 2016 search of defendant and the car in which he had been sleeping revealed baggies containing methamphetamine, a methamphetamine pipe, empty pill containers, a torch lighter, more than 150 small zip-top baggies, a small digital scale with white residue on it, 37 cell phones, approximately seven laptop computers, 10 sets of car keys, a small camera, a car stereo, and a fake gun.
A jury found defendant Jeremy Lee Deaton guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that he had two prior drug convictions. (§ 11370.2, former subd. (c).) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of nine years in prison, consisting of the upper term of three years for possession of methamphetamine for sale, plus a consecutive three-year term for each prior felony drug conviction. |