CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Hugo Angel Chavez shot a friend and watched him slowly die. He enlisted a girlfriend to help put the decomposing body into garbage bags for transport to an improvised backyard crematorium. The girlfriend lacked enthusiasm for the task, informed on appellant, and was the star witness at his criminal trial. The jury convicted appellant of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).)
Central to his claim of self-defense, appellant testified about the victim’s propensity for violence. The trial court advised the jury that the victim’s wife had a restraining order against him, but did not admit the order into evidence; this is precisely what defense counsel asked the court to do. Excluding the restraining order was not an abuse of the court’s discretion because appellant was able to testify about its effect on his state of mind. Appellant did not preserve an objection to the justifiable homicide and voluntary manslaughter instructions; nonetheless, the jur

After the trial court denied defendant Jesus Manuel Brunner’s motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a short-barreled shotgun (§ 33210) and unlawful use of personal identifying information (§ 530.5); defendant also pleaded guilty to providing false information to a law enforcement officer, a misdemeanor (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of three years eight months in county jail.
Defendant now contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. We will affirm the judgment.

This appeal arises from a contract dispute between plaintiff, cross¬–defendant and appellant Eden Novelo (Novelo), and defendant, cross–complainant and respondent Vulcan Siecles, Inc. (Vulcan). Following a four–day bench trial, the court entered judgments on the complaint in favor of Novelo for approximately $17,500, and on the cross-complaint for approximately $14,300 in favor of Vulcan, resulting in a net award of about $3,150 in favor of Novelo, who appeals. We conclude that Novelo’s claims fail on the merits, and that he has forfeited his claims of trial court error for failing to provide an adequate appellate record or to adhere to standards of appellate procedure. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

G.V. (mother), the mother of minors J.C. and A.M., seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s order bypassing family reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452, 8.456.) Mother contends (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s findings; (2) her request for substitute counsel was erroneously denied; (3) she received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) her appointed attorney and the juvenile court judge who presided over the matter had conflicts of interest. We deny the petition.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained a petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleging that minor George W. made a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422) to his former girlfriend, M.W., and M.W.’s grandmother, Cheryl. On appeal, the minor contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings. We disagree and affirm.

Petitioner Melvyn Coleman is a state prison inmate who was convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, robbery, burglary and possession of a firearm by an ex-convict in 1974, and sentenced to an indeterminate term of seven years to life. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) found him unsuitable for parole on October 7, 2014, which coincidentally was his 69th birthday. He contends that the refusal to grant parole was arbitrary in violation of his rights to due process; that the Board failed to set the correct adjusted base term in accordance with the stipulated order described in In re Butler (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1222 (Butler), a denial of his right to due process; that even the erroneous adjustment of his base term as set by the Board indicates that he has been subject to the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the United States and California constitutions, including denial of his statutory entitlem

Defendant Milstein Adelman, LLP appeals from a February 10, 2016 order denying its special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The target of defendant’s motion is a malicious prosecution complaint filed by plaintiff Floor Tech, Inc. Defendant contends plaintiff fails to present evidence showing it acted with malice.
But malice can be inferred based on defendant’s continued prosecution of the underlying construction defect action after being notified plaintiff had no involvement in the construction project. By demonstrating that defendant knew there was no probable cause to maintain the underlying action, plaintiff makes a sufficient showing to defeat defendant’s special motion to strike under section 425.16. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying defendant’s special motion to strike.

Appellants T.L. (mother) and Fr.B. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights as to minors F.B., J.B., and O.B. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Father also appeals the denial of his petition for modification. (§§ 388, 395.)
Appellants contend the juvenile court erred in determining the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption did not apply. Father also contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in summarily denying his petition for modification and that the orders must be reversed due to noncompliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (hereafter ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Mother joins in these arguments. We shall affirm.

El Dorado Custom Pools (Custom Pools) sued Steven Stein asserting breach of contract, quantum meruit and other claims following the partial construction of a pool, and Stein cross-complained. The trial court found the contract unenforceable, the quantum meruit claim was removed to bankruptcy court and later dismissed for lack of prosecution, and Stein ultimately dismissed his cross-complaint. The trial court entered judgment awarding nothing to Custom Pools on its complaint and nothing to Stein on his cross-complaint, but noted the judgment did not preclude a motion for attorney’s fees.

Corey M. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452), seeking review of the juvenile court’s March 24, 2017, order removing her three daughters, now eight-year-old Hallie, six-year-old Mia and three-year-old Jasmine, from her custody pursuant to a supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 387) and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding family maintenance services had proven ineffective in protecting the children and its order removing the children from her custody. We deny the petition.

Dr. Enobong Ekong changed the beneficiary on a life insurance policy in August 2011, shortly before his death. After his passing, a family law court concluded that Enobong’s ex-wife Ruth J. Ekong owned one-half of the policy. (Because of their shared surname we refer to several persons by their first names.) Subsequently, in the appealed from judgment, the probate court awarded Ruth 50 percent of the proceeds of the life insurance policy.
The trustee of Enobong’s trust, Edi M.O. Faal, appeals from the judgment of the probate court. On appeal, the trustee demonstrates no error, and we affirm the judgment awarding respondent Ruth 50 percent of the proceeds of Enobong’s life insurance policy.

Ana C. (mother) filed an extraordinary writ petition (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452), seeking review of the Fresno County Juvenile Court’s (Fresno juvenile court) April 6, 2017, order removing her now nine-year-old son, Donovan, from her custody pursuant to a supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 387) and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother contends exigent circumstances prevented her from receiving the full benefit of reunification services. Therefore, she argues, the juvenile court’s orders terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing are error. We deny the petition.

Plaintiffs and appellants California Drive Holdings, LLC (First Buyer), and its assignee, 20 Highland Ave., LLC (Second Buyer) (collectively, Buyers), appeal from a superior court order denying their motion to compel arbitration. They maintain First Buyer had an agreement to purchase an apartment building from defendant and respondent Luke Wang, which included an arbitration clause, and Wang’s belated attempt to revoke his counteroffer, after First Buyer had accepted it, was legally ineffective. We agree and reverse the order.

Defendant Vladimir Ermin pleaded no contest to being an accessory. (Pen. Code, § 32.) He was placed on probation for three years with conditions that included the following: “Your computer and all other electronic devices, including but not limited to cellular telephones, laptops, computers, or notepads, shall be subject to forensic analysis search for information reasonably related to criminal activity.” Defendant was also required to “consent to and provide all passwords necessary to access and search said electronic devices to Probation and law enforcement.”