CA Unpub Decisions

C.B. appeals an order terminating his parental rights as to minor J.B. contending the trial court erred failing to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to prevent adoption of J.B. by relative caregivers. M.S. (mother) appeals the order terminating her parental rights as to minor J.B., but only joined C.B.’s arguments regarding his relationship with J.B. We conclude substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings and it did not abuse its discretion in concluding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply to prevent the preferred plan of adoption for J.B. Therefore, we affirm the order as to J.B.
Mother also appeals orders entered the same date terminating her parental rights as to minors S.S., L.S., and O.S. After examination of the record, mother’s appointed counsel filed a brief indicating there are no arguable issues as to S.S., L.S., and O.S. We deny the request to exercise our discretion to review the record for error and pe

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth J. Medel, Judge. Affirmed.
Shakina Ortega, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz & Dolin, Douglas A. Pettit, Jocelyn D. Hannah and Sabrina D. Johnson for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Shakina Ortega (Plaintiff) appeals from a judgment in favor of her former attorneys, defendants Higgs Fletcher and Mack LLP (HFM), Paul J. Pfingst, and Christina Denning (together, Defendants), following the grant of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Plaintiff raises a number of issues and arguments based on her contention that the trial court erred by deciding the summary judgment motion at a time in the litigation when Pfingst owed discovery responses and a discovery dispute was pending. As we explain, Plaintiff did not meet her burden of establishing reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Timothy Loyd Green and his codefendant, Eddie Siscon, worked for All Road Satellite (ARS), a company that provides satellite telephone equipment and service to its customers. During the time that Green and Siscon were working for ARS, the pair created a competing satellite telephone company, Apollo Satellite Communications (Apollo). Green and Siscon began surreptitiously switching ARS customers from the ARS billing system and placing those customers in Apollo’s billing system so that the customers were paying Apollo, rather than ARS, for their satellite telephone service. While perpetrating this scheme, Siscon made notes in the customers’ ARS files that were intended to prevent ARS from discovering what was occurring. After being criminally charged in connection with this scheme, both Green and Siscon pled guilty to obtaining the personal identifying information of 10 or more individuals with the intent to defraud, in exchange for the prosecution’s agreement to drop grand theft c

J.D., father of the minor, challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) He contends the juvenile court and the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We will reverse and remand for limited ICWA proceedings.

G. F., mother of the minor (mother), appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order removing the minor from her care and custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 395.) We affirm.

Defendant Angela Michelle Latten was convicted of five counts of burglary and sentenced to a term of three years for the first count and four consecutive terms of eight months each for the remaining four counts. All five burglaries occurred on the same night on the same property. Defendant appeals, arguing the burglaries were part of the same course of conduct and thus consecutive sentences were prohibited by Penal Code section 654. We disagree and affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ricardo Quezada asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

In a seven-count information, defendant Carlos Gallo Ayala (defendant) was charged with infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), false imprisonment by force (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a); count 2), assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3), second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count 4), stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count 5), dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 6), and bribery to influence the information given to a law enforcement official (§ 137, subd. (a); count 7). After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7. On count 4, defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor theft (§ 484). Defendant was found not guilty on count 5. The court denied defendant’s request for probation and sentenced him to a six-year term of imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the vi

Defendant Jose Maria Vallijo pled no contest to possession of a firearm as a felon and a prior strike after a magistrate denied his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, he argues the magistrate erred in denying his motion to suppress at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing. Recognizing his attorney may not have adequately preserved this issue for appeal, defendant also argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to renew his motion with the trial court. We agree that defendant’s counsel was ineffective, so we reverse the judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant Bennie Edward Dickinson pleaded guilty to fleeing a pursuing peace officer’s motor vehicle while driving recklessly and admitted he served two prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced him to serve an aggregate term of five years in state prison, including two years for the two prior prison term enhancements. Additionally, the court imposed court operations and conviction assessments and a restitution fine. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the prior prison term enhancements must be vacated based on the retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136) (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020); (2) the imposition of the court assessments violates his constitutional rights because there was no determination of his ability to pay them; (3) the imposition of a restitution fine without an ability to pay hearing violates the excessive fines prohibition; and (4) the imposition of a restitution fine without an ability to pay hearing

Appointed counsel for defendant Chancellor Lenard Wade asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment

Five years after his home was sold in a foreclosure sale, plaintiff Tomas Mercado Carpio IV sued defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and others for causes of action including wrongful foreclosure and breach of contract. The trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants’ demurrer to Carpio’s second amended complaint, finding the applicable statutes of limitations had run. Carpio now appeals contending the statutes of limitations was tolled under the delayed discovery rule and equitable tolling.
We affirm.

Plaintiff California Fire-Roasted LLC (CFR) and defendant Olam West Coast, Inc. (Olam), are parties to an agreement under which Olam agreed to pay fees in exchange for the right to use CFR’s “Licensed Technology,” as defined, for the production of fire-roasted and smoked tomato products. The fees required to be paid under the agreement were based on the total volume of tomato products produced using the Licensed Technology.
In 2014, CFR filed a complaint alleging that Olam breached their agreement by using CFR’s Licensed Technology to manufacture tomato products without paying license fees. The complaint also alleged claims for quantum meruit and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
In 2017, CFR moved for summary adjudication against Olam on its breach of contract claim. CFR narrowly argued that undisputed facts established that Olam breached the agreement by using one specific aspect of the Licensed Technology—the “know-how” embodied in cert

At the continued disposition hearing for one-year-old A.W., the juvenile court found she could not safely be returned to either parent’s custody. The juvenile court denied reunification services for both parents and scheduled a selection and implementation hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Mother, Diondria D., petitions for extraordinary relief, arguing that the juvenile court erred in its jurisdictional findings and in denying reunification services. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition.