CA Unpub Decisions

Robert C. (Father) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating his reunification services as to his daughter R.C. (Minor) at the 12-month review hearing. He contends the juvenile court erred: (1) in finding respondent San Mateo County Human Services Agency (Agency) provided him reasonable services to aid him in overcoming the problems that led to Minor’s removal (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e));[1] and (2) in reducing the frequency of visitation. We reject those contentions and affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

This case is before us for the second time. (See T.P. v. T.W. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1428.) In this appeal, T.P. (Father) challenges a judgment freeing his daughter (Minor) from his parental custody and control. The judgment was entered in a proceeding brought by respondent T.W. (Mother) seeking a finding that Father had abandoned Minor within the meaning of Family Code section 7822.[1] The trial court found Mother had proved the existence of all of the elements of section 7822 abandonment by clear and convincing evidence.
Father asks us to reverse the judgment for two reasons. He first claims the trial court’s failure to consider appointing independent counsel for Minor makes the judgment voidable as in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. He also contends the court’s finding that he intended to abandon Minor is unsupported by substantial evidence. We find neither contention persuasive and therefore affirm.

A modification decision.

Underground Construction Co., Inc. (Underground) worked on a construction project in Oakland (the Project) that included relocating existing overhead electrical, telephone, and cable television lines into conduit laid in underground trenches; removing and replacing sidewalks and adding ramps; and installing utility boxes and street light foundations. During the course of the Project, disputes arose between Underground, the City of Oakland (the City), and the owners of the affected utility lines[1] regarding how much Underground was owed for certain aspects of the work. Ultimately, Underground sued the City and the Utilities (collectively the Owner Parties) for additional sums it alleged were due under the contract for the Project.

T.C. is the mother of K.C., a dependent child of the Santa Cruz County Juvenile Court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 300, et seq. T.C. appeals a court order authorizing out-of-state travel with K.C.’s paternal grandmother.
A memorandum opinion is appropriate in this case because no novel issues are presented. According to the California Supreme Court, “an opinion sufficiently states ‘reasons’ if it sets forth the ‘grounds’ or ‘principles’ upon which the justices concur in the judgment.” (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1262.)
The order at issue in this appeal was made after a hearing on July 17, 2012, authorizing travel to Reno, Nevada on July 26, 2012 to July 29, 2012. T.C. admits “it is reasonable to assume the travel has already occurred,” but insists this court should consider the merits of her challenge to the order. The Attorney General asserts the action is moot, and should be dismissed.

Defendant Ramon Corona appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c) – count one) and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, former § 12021, subd. (a)(1) – count two). The jury also found that defendant personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)) and was armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)) during the commission of count one. In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 19 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by: (1) admitting evidence of a knife recovered from the suspects’ vehicle, (2) dismissing a juror who was sleeping during trial, and (3) failing to stay sentence on count two pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We conclude that the sentence on count two must be stayed. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Enrique Argueta Lopez appeals a judgment of conviction following his plea of guilty to two counts of possession of stolen rifles (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)),[1] and admission that one of those counts was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
Defendant was awarded 385 days of total custody credit, consisting of 257 days of actual credit, and 128 days of conduct credit. On appeal he asserts he is entitled to an additional 128 conduct credits pursuant to the October 1, 2011 amendments to section 4019.

Appellant Salvador Prado filed a petition in the Santa Clara Superior Court seeking to vacate a conviction he sustained in 1999 for possessing a controlled substance for sale. The petition presented an unusual difficulty, however, for the judgment he sought to overturn had been rendered in Contra Costa County, not Santa Clara County. This fact was apparently overlooked by the court below, which mistakenly supposed that defendant was challenging a 2007 conviction he had sustained in Santa Clara County. After reviewing the record in that case, the court denied the petition on the merits. On appeal from that order, defendant contends that the court should not have adjudicated the validity of either judgment. We agree, and will reverse with directions to dismiss the petition without prejudice.

Defendant Rene Hernandez appeals after conviction, by jury trial, of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)),[1] penetration with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (former § 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found true allegations that defendant kidnapped the victim before committing the rape and penetration. (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e)(1).) Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of 15 years to life for the rape and penetration, with the term for the assault stayed pursuant to section 654.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping allegations; (2) the trial court failed to instruct the jury that in determining whether defendant kidnapped the victim, it should consider whether the forcible movement was incidental to the commission of the associated offenses; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to admit 10 booking photos of defendant to show his changed appearance and consciousness of guilt; (4) the trial court failed to instruct the jury to view defendant’s oral admissions with caution and failed to give a corpus delicti instruction; (5) the trial court coerced a verdict on the kidnapping allegations by directing the jury to continue deliberating on those allegations after the jury reported a deadlock on count 1; (6) the cumulative effect of the errors denied defendant due process and a fair trial; (7) section 654 barred the trial court from imposing One Strike law sentences for both the rape and penetration with a foreign object based on the same act of kidnapping; and (8) this court should order a suppression hearing or find that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to bring a suppression motion, because defendant’s DNA was taken after arrest on an unrelated felony charge for which he was not convicted, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Plaintiffs Maria Leon and Rafael Leon brought an action against defendant Watsonville Hospital Corporation for the hospital’s failure to advise them, when they were admitted to the emergency room, that the emergency room physicians did not accept plaintiffs’ health care plan and for the hospital’s failure to take other action to prevent the emergency room physicians from “balance billing” or charging excessive fees for services rendered. Plaintiffs, who brought the action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons, sued the hospital for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.; CLRA), and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Appellants Andy’s BP, Inc. and Andy Saberi challenge the trial court’s order denying them an award of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.[1] We find no error and affirm.

Defendant Brent Melton Collier appeals from an order extending his involuntary commitment to a state hospital as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2972.)[1] He claims the court violated his statutory and constitutional rights by failing to advise him of his right to a jury trial and then conducting a bench trial without obtaining his personal waiver.
We affirm the order.

Defendant Vincent Bruce Cardinalli appeals a judgment of conviction entered following his plea of no contest to 100 counts of theft and fraud-related offenses. Defendant and members of his family, including his son and daughter, operated a tow truck business and a small claims law suit mill through which they used fabricated car towing and storage fee bills to defraud people.
On appeal, defendant asserts he is entitled to additional conduct credits under the amended provisions of Penal Code section 4019.[1] In addition, defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to order his daughter, who is one of his codefendants, jointly and severally liable for the restitution award to the victims in this case.

Plaintiff Richard Ashoff appeals the granting of defendant Essentia Insurance Company’s (Essentia) motion for summary judgment. We affirm.