CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant David James Eggman guilty of counts including second degree murder and attempted murder. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) substantial evidence did not support his convictions as the prosecution failed to prove he did not act in self-defense; and (2) the prosecutor’s closing argument relied on facts not in evidence and improper propensity evidence. We will affirm.

Plaintiff Timothy H. Stearns sued defendants James Goguen and James Soares for breach of an attorney fee agreement and common counts. Defendants filed a cross-appeal, raising numerous contentions regarding plaintiff’s legal representation.

Niranjan Kaur sued her son and daughter-in-law for financial elder abuse. After Kaur stipulated to facts at trial but before she called her first witness the trial court granted defendants’ motion for nonsuit on the ground that a discovery sanction precluded Kaur from proving facts sufficient to support her claim. Kaur argues the motion was procedurally improper because she had no opportunity to make an opening statement, and failed on its merits because it is uncertain whether the discovery sanction precluded evidence sufficient to support her claim. We agree with both contentions, and therefore reverse.

The order of the juvenile court denying Father’s section 388 petition is affirmed. The court’s order terminating parental rights is conditionally reversed. The cause is remanded to the juvenile court with instructions to conduct a hearing, at which the parties may present evidence and argument, for the purpose of the court’s consideration, under the appropriate criteria as clarified in Caden C. and this opinion, of whether Mother has met her burden to show that the parental-benefit exception applies. If, after such a hearing, the juvenile court finds that this exception applies, the court shall proceed in accordance with the law. If after such a hearing the court finds that the exception does not apply, the court shall reinstate its order terminating parental rights and proceed with appropriate permanency plan for the children.

Cedric B. (father) appeals from an April 23, 2021 order of the juvenile court that adjudicated two of father’s children juvenile court dependents, granted the children’s mother full physical and joint legal custody, and permitted father to have only monitored visits with the children. Father contends the juvenile court erred in requiring his visits to be monitored because there was no substantial evidence that unsupervised visits would be detrimental to the children. We find no error, and thus we will affirm the order in full.

Mother L.P. appeals the juvenile court’s reasonable services finding made at the six-month review hearing concerning her child S.S. Finding the order is appealable, and that the finding is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse.

In this appeal from a judgment following a probation revocation hearing, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating that counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues on appeal. This appeal is not subject to Wende review because it is not an appeal from the judgment of conviction. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1034, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) We therefore dismiss the appeal. (See People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1026.)

Curtis Lynn Clark appeals from a civil harassment restraining order issued against him after a hearing on a petition filed by respondent Itzel Molina under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. Molina filed two proofs of service and several declarations in advance of the hearing, during which the trial court heard testimony from Clark and two nonparty witnesses. On appeal, Clark failed to include Molina’s proofs of service and declarations in the clerk’s transcript, and elected to proceed without any record of the oral proceedings, including his and the other witnesses’ testimony. Clark contends the court erred in issuing the restraining order because: (1) he was not served with notice of the hearing; and (2) one of Molina’s proofs of service (which he falsely characterizes as her sole proof of service) was both defective and false. He fails, however, to provide an adequate record to review these contentions. “‘“[I]f the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the ap

A conservator petitioned the probate court for substituted judgment to amend the conservatee’s revocable trust. (Prob. Code, § 2580 et seq.) At the conservatee’s request, the trial court sealed portions of the record. The conservatee’s sister and potential heir objected to the petition and sealing order. The probate court granted the petition with the record sealed. The objector appeals. We affirm.

Defendants and appellants Frank Ervin and Shawn Verrette are each serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for the special circumstance murder and robbery of Franklin Robles. Defendants appeal from the orders denying their respective petitions for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.

By virtue of her former employment by Los Angeles County (County) as an emergency room nurse and, later, hospital administrator, Charla Toedt was a member of the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA). She accrued nearly 30 years of service and planned to retire on June 26, 2019.

In 1994, Lance David Brodis (appellant) was convicted of multiple crimes, including first-degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), after he and a partner stole from a family at gunpoint and left one of its members dead. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for murder. No sentences were imposed on the other counts.

Appellant Jason Post petitioned to compel arbitration of a lawsuit filed by respondent John Ehrman. The dispute concerns a web of businesses they used to invest in real property. The trial court denied the petition, finding that Post and entities related to him failed to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.

In 2015, defendant and appellant Luis Orozco, along with two codefendants, was convicted by a jury of the special circumstance murder and robbery of Franklin Robles. Defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. A panel of this court affirmed defendant’s conviction in an unpublished decision. (People v. Orozco (Dec. 14, 2018, B276130) [nonpub. opn.].)