500 matching results for "abundy":
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Patrick Trujillo appeals from his conviction for possessing a controlled substance while in prison. Defendant contends the trial court violated his rights to due process, to present a defense, and to a fair jury trial by not permitting him to present the defense of medical necessity. He further argues the court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on necessity.
We conclude defendant was not entitled to present a defense of medical necessity because Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 limits the common law medical necessity defense, as it relates to marijuana, to those who have “a physician’s recommendation or approval” for the use of marijuana and defendant had neither. (People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1160-1161 (Galambos).) Accordingly, defendant also was not entitled to a jury instruction on necessity. We thus find no error and affirm. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
This appeal arises from a probate court’s decision to supervise a testamentary special needs trust, to order the administrator of the estate to withhold distribution of certain funds, and to award extraordinary attorney fees to the administrator’s attorney. The appellant trustee contends the court did not have jurisdiction to supervise the trust, and that it abused its discretion in ordering the withholding and the extraordinary fees. We affirm the probate court’s orders.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Petitioner Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. petitioned this court for relief from an order of the Los Angeles Superior Court denying Disney’s motion to transfer venue as untimely. Because we conclude that the court erred in determining the motion was time-barred, we grant the petition for a writ of mandate and direct Respondent court to consider the motion on the merits.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Z.B. (father) appeals from the orders of the juvenile court, challenging the denial of his request to be declared a presumed father and to order reunification services. He contends that the orders must be reversed because he presented substantial evidence of presumed father status, and because the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying services. Finding no merit to father’s contentions, we affirm the orders.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Gilberto V., father of H.V. and H.G.V. (Father), appeals from a dispositional order made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c)(1) removing the children from his custody. Father contends section 361, subdivision (c)(1) applies only to a parent with whom a child resides, and because H.V. and H.V.G. did not reside with Father, the court had no authority under that section to make the orders restricting his rights to the children. Father also contends the juvenile court erred by limiting him to monitored visitation. We agree with Father that section 361, subdivision (c) does not apply but we conclude that Father has failed to demonstrate prejudice. We do not agree that the juvenile court erred by limiting Father’s visitation with the children. Therefore, we affirm but remand with directions.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
C.B. (Father), appeals from the dependency court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders relating to Father’s 12 year old son, G.B. He also challenges the permanent restraining order that enjoined him from certain conduct with respect to G.B., G.B.’s mother (Mother), and Mother’s husband, and challenges the exit order that granted Mother sole custody of G.B. Specifically, Father contends that insufficient evidence supported the jurisdictional findings against him; that the court denied him due process in conducting the adjudication proceedings and issuing a restraining order; that the court erred in dismissing the allegation that Mother emotionally abused G.B., and in failing to require the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to facilitate his visitation with G.B. DCFS filed a cross-appeal complaining that the court referred to the wrong statute when it terminated jurisdiction. As we explain, the parties’ contentions lack merit or are moot. Accordingly, we
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
M.W. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She contends the court erred when it found she did not qualify for the beneficial relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In a juvenile court petition, the prosecution alleged M.C. possessed a knife on school property. (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a)(1).) M.C. moved to suppress evidence of the knife. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1.) The court denied M.C.’s motion. M.C. then admitted the allegation in the petition. The court declared the offense a misdemeanor, adjudged M.C. a ward of the court, and placed him home on probation. M.C. contends that the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Oscar A. (father) and E.M. (mother) separately appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to James M. (minor). After mother’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, raising no issues, we notified mother and gave her the opportunity to file a letter or supplemental brief. Mother submitted a letter asking that minor be returned to her custody or that she be permitted to visit him. In her letter she failed to provide any reasoned legal argument or authority showing that any of the juvenile court’s rulings constitute reversible error. We thus deem her appeal abandoned. Father contends that through oversight the juvenile court omitted a finding that he was a presumed father, and that the omission resulted in a violation of due process.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Jose Pablo Hernandez appeals from a probation revocation order. We affirm the order.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
After defendant Eduardo Salgado lightly hit the back of another car at a stoplight, he was confronted by the other driver. Remaining seated in his car, defendant picked up and cocked or racked his handgun and asked the other driver, “Is there any damage?” The jury convicted defendant of one count of making criminal threats and one count of possession of a concealed firearm. On appeal, defendant contends his criminal threats conviction was based on his nonverbal conduct and therefore cannot stand pursuant to People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138 (Gonzalez). He also argues that the trial court erred in failing to give a self-defense instruction. In addition, he raises a constitutional challenge to his conviction on the concealed firearm count. We affirm the convictions on both counts. We also conclude that defendant has forfeited his right to challenge the conditions of his probation.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiff and appellant Optikal Noize, Inc. (Optikal) appeals from an order dismissing its action against defendants and respondents Global Gift Foundation (GGF), Maria Bravo, and Alina Peralta (collectively, Respondents). The trial court dismissed the action 14 months after it had granted Respondents’ motion to stay the case under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 based upon a contractual forum selection clause. On November 24, 2015, the trial court initially stayed the case to permit an action to be commenced in Spain, the designated forum. Then, at a status hearing on January 18, 2017, the trial court dismissed the action after learning that Optikal had filed a complaint in Spain.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Vincent Lamont Heard appeals from the judgment of his convictions of assault with a semi-automatic firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (b). Appellant argues that the court erred when it instructed the jury with a pinpoint instruction, stating “[i]n determining how a reasonable person would act, you cannot consider as a circumstance a mental state unique to the defendant which affected his ability to perceive the situation.” He complains that the instruction was misleading and invited the jury to ignore evidence regarding his defense of accident—that appellant lacked the intent to discharge the firearm. As we shall explain, we disagree. Notwithstanding our conclusion on the claim of instructional error, we remand this matter for resentencing in light of the Legislature’s recent amendment to the law regarding imposition of handgun enhancements. (§ 12022.5.)
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Richard McIntee took his two-year-old daughter, Z., from the arms of the babysitter her mother hired and drove her away in his van. For the next two weeks, defendant declined Z.’s mother’s entreaties to return Z. or disclose her whereabouts. Law enforcement officers tracked defendant to Riverside County and arrested him; his girlfriend led the officers to a converted garage, from which Z. was recovered unharmed.
Defendant was charged with kidnapping Z., depriving Z.’s mother of child custody, making criminal threats, endangering a child, and vandalism. During his jury trial, the court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the child endangerment and vandalism charges as time-barred. The jury, which the court instructed with CALCRIM pattern instructions, convicted defendant of kidnapping Z. and depriving her mother of custody. It acquitted him of making criminal threats. |