CA Unpub Decisions

A juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendant and appellant O.R. (father) as to his son, J.R. (the child). On appeal, father contends the court erred by finding the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights inapplicable. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.

Appellant Frederick R. Hudson III is the former partner of respondents David Bachan and Steven Duke in an insurance brokerage firm. The parties dispute the ownership of an insurance policy purchased by Bachan and Duke on Hudson’s life. The trial court determined that at the time Hudson gave a notice to withdraw from the partnership under Corporations Code section 16601 the partnership had already been dissolved, preventing Hudson from exercising his right to transfer the life insurance policy under the parties’ partnership agreement. On appeal from the trial court’s judgment, Hudson asserts the court erred by concluding the partnership was dissolved. We reject Hudson’s argument and affirm the judgment.

In 2006, Azul Penaloza Galeana and her husband were charged with a number of offenses in the death of Galeana’s child. Galeana was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), with the special circumstance of torture also alleged (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)) as well as other felony offenses.

Defendant Alex Leonard Azevedo appeals the sentence imposed after this court affirmed his convictions but remanded the matter for a resentencing hearing. Appointed counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record and defendant’s supplemental brief, we note an error in the trial court’s award of postsentencing custody credits pursuant to People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 30-34. We find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. As modified with additional custody credits, the judgment is affirmed.

In 1999, defendant pleaded no contest to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of 11 years to life. We affirmed the judgment in 2001, and the case became final in 2001. (People v. Kishor (Jan. 9, 2001, C034740) [nonpub. opn.].)

A jury found defendant Shannon Lee Anderson guilty of making criminal threats. On appeal, defendant asserts the conviction should be reversed because: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support various elements of the offense; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 when it admitted a text message into evidence. We affirm.

After a jury found defendant Timothy David Bower guilty of committing multiple crimes against his girlfriend, including assault with a deadly weapon and corporal injury to a cohabitant, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 16 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant argues his convictions should be reversed, because (1) the trial court contravened his constitutional and statutory rights by admitting evidence of his prior domestic violence convictions and his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with admission of that evidence; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding consideration of a lesser included offense; (3) the prosecution committed misconduct in closing argument by distorting the burden of proof and commenting on defendant’s failure to testify; and, (4) cumulative error. Regarding his sentence, defendant argues (5) there were inaccuracies in, and procedural irregularities in the generation of, a probation officer

Plaintiff and appellant Irene Hanson appeals from the trial court’s order granting the motion of defendant and respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Hanson principally contends the settlement agreement is unenforceable because she withdrew her acceptance before an agreement was formed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

In August 2002, defendant and appellant Man Cooc Doung was convicted of second-degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) In May 2003, the trial court sentenced Doung to a term of 15 years to life, and imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). In 2009 and 2010, the trial court denied Doung’s requests to modify the amount of restitution imposed. On June 9, 2021, Doung again filed a motion to modify his sentence, arguing the trial court improperly failed to consider that he had no ability to pay the restitution fine. The trial court denied the motion on several grounds, including: Doung failed to object to the fine at trial or in his original appeal; he had not challenged the fine in a timely manner; he had not established he could not pay the fine; and the court had no jurisdiction to modify the fine. Doung timely appealed.

Sophie R. (born Oct. 2014) was declared a dependent of the juvenile court in November 2018, when the court sustained a petition in which respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) alleged that mother endangered Sophie by leaving her unattended in a car, and that mother had a history of mental and emotional problems. In October 2018, DCFS removed Sophie from mother’s home and placed her in the home of her paternal great aunt and uncle. The court ordered family reunification services for parents but terminated them two years later and set a permanency planning hearing. At that hearing (in May 2021), it was undisputed that the paternal aunt and uncle would likely adopt Sophie. (See In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630 (Caden C.).) Father, however, asserted the “beneficial parental relationship exception” to termination of parental rights. (Ibid.) The juvenile court rejected the exception and terminated father’s parental rights, along with

The question here is whether cross-defendants are liable for injuries caused by a third party. The trial court granted cross-defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that they did not increase the risk of injury and were not in a special relationship with cross-complainant or the third party who caused the injury. We affirm the judgment.

Locadio Aguirre appeals from the judgment committing him to a state hospital as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) He contends: (1) the trial court denied him due process and a fair trial when it refused to consider potential parole conditions, (2) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence regarding a male victim, (3) counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and (4) cumulative error requires reversal. We affirm.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), Residents for Orcutt Sensible Growth and Gina Lord-Garland (appellants) brought an action challenging the approval of a new retail commercial center in Orcutt, an unincorporated area in the County of Santa Barbara (County). The commercial center is located within the area of the Orcutt Community Plan (OCP). In 1997 respondent County certified a final environmental impact report (the 1997 EIR) for the OCP.

On June 3, 2018, defendant was released on parole. On October 8, 2020, a petition was filed to revoke his parole, alleging violation of multiple conditions of parole. Following a hearing before a commissioner acting as temporary judge, parole was revoked and reinstated. Defendant appeals.