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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

A modification decision.

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

A jury found Ismael Parra and Michael Cardenas guilty of second degree murder (count 1; Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)[1]), gang-related battery (count 2; §§ 242, 186.22, subd. (d)) and street terrorism (count 3; § 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the special allegation that the murder was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal street gang as to Cardenas only. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).)
The trial court sentenced Parra and Cardenas to 15 years to life on count 1. The court imposed a three year concurrent term for each on count 2. The court stayed punishment on count 3 and on Cardenas’s gang enhancement pursuant to section 654. The court ordered victim restitution in the amount of $10,457.82. The abstract of judgment is corrected to make restitution joint and several as to Parra and Cardenas. In all other respects, we affirm.

D.G. (Father) appeals from orders denying his request for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition,[1] setting the matter for a section 366.26 hearing, terminating his parental rights, and ordering adoption for Q.G. Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred by denying his section 388 petition without a hearing. We affirm.

Appellant Darryl Lee Goldstein appeals from a judgment entered upon his plea of no contest, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress. His appeal is authorized by Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m).[1]
On July 25 and August 10, 2016, respectively, appellant filed a “Request for Court’s Assistance (Law Library Pro Per Use)” and a request to represent himself in propria persona. Those requests were denied on October 7, 2016.
Appellant’s court appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has advised appellant that he may personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to the court’s attention, but appellant has filed no such brief.

Defendant A.A. (Father) is the father of two minor children who are the subjects of the underlying dependency petition. The San Mateo County Human Services Agency (Agency) filed the proceeding after his six-year-old daughter (Daughter) reported he had hit her with a belt, causing bruises on her calf and thigh. Father appeals from the jurisdictional finding, claiming no substantial evidence supports the findings of serious physical abuse and abuse of a sibling under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, subdivision (a). He also challenges the dispositional order removing the children from his physical custody, claiming the finding of “substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being” is also not supported by substantial evidence. Father further claims the court abused its discretion in terminating the dependency proceeding and placing the minors with their mother (Mother).[2] We affirm.

Defendant Javon Strong appeals a judgment convicting him of first degree murder and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life in prison. He contends his constitutional rights were violated by the admission at trial of his girlfriend’s involuntary statements to the police. We find no error and thus shall affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Lazaris Italo Fuller of two crimes against Jane Doe 1: kidnapping for purposes of rape (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)) and assault with intent to commit rape (id., § 220). Fuller appeals from the judgement of conviction, arguing (1) the trial court erred in overruling objections to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges of African-American jurors; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for aggravated kidnapping; (3) evidence of uncharged conduct was erroneously admitted; (4) the trial court made various instructional errors; and (5) the trial court’s Pitchess[1] proceedings and records should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. We affirm.