CA Unpub Decisions

A prospective buyer of a business cancelled the sale before escrow closed. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded the seller $50,000 in liquidated damages, plus attorney fees and costs. The trial court also denied the buyer’s post judgment motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663.
The buyer—plaintiff, cross defendant and appellant David Pedder—appeals from the judgment and the denial of his post judgment motion. We affirm.

Rosa C. (Mother) appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing at which the juvenile court terminated her parental rights over two-year-old G.G., found no applicable exceptions to the termination of parental rights, and referred G.G. to the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) for adoptive placement. Mother contends the court reversibly erred in proceeding with the contested section 366.26 hearing in her absence. She was incarcerated at the time of the hearing and did not waive her right to participate under Penal Code section 2625.

M.H., mother of the minors (mother), appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Mother challenges the juvenile court’s finding that the minors were adoptable. We will affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Defendant Mark Hernandez appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, arguing the trial court erred when it ruled he was ineligible for relief under the statute. We affirm.

Appellants, Patricia Smith and Glenn Deary II, appeal from dismissal of their action against respondent, FPI Management Inc. (FPI); they argue: (1) because FPI was in default for not answering the amended complaint, the trial court erred in failing to enter judgment in their favor, and (2) FPI’s attorney perjured himself concerning the service of the summons and complaint. We disagree and will affirm the judgment.

This appeal is from a postjudgment order denying the application of defendant Walter Langston to designate as misdemeanors his convictions for violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle) and Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a) (receiving a stolen vehicle). (§ 1170.18, subds. (f), (g).) We find no error and affirm the order.

On July 17, 2014, the driver of an Isuzu Rodeo SUV led two Manteca Police Department detectives and other officers on a 2.6 mile vehicle pursuit through residential streets in Manteca. Ultimately, the Isuzu slowed, the driver jumped out and fled on foot, and the Isuzu continued forward and struck a parked vehicle. One of the detectives, who had ten prior contacts with defendant, identified him as the driver of the Isuzu.

Appellant and petitioner Kamaron Lemont Walker (defendant) appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues. On October 30, 2020, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered

Appellant and petitioner Joel Martin (defendant) appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues. On October 27, 2020, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. Because defendant's appeal is from an order denying post-conviction relief, he is not entitled to our

Appellant Robert Legaspi contends the trial court miscalculated the penalty assessments imposed at his sentencing hearing, and failed to identify the statutory basis for each. The People agree, as do we, that the matter must be remanded for the trial court to correct these errors, and issue a modified abstract of judgment that identifies the statutory basis for each fine, fee, and penalty assessment imposed.

The father of minor K.G., Jr., (K.G.) appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order requiring him to submit to eight on-demand drug tests. We affirm.

Keith C. (father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to five-year-old Jemma F. (born April 2015). Father argues that the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights. While father fails to cite any legal authority supporting his argument, he appears to be arguing that the juvenile court erred in declining to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i).

In December 2016 a jury convicted defendant and appellant Israel Magana of the murders of Covan Brady and Matthew Martin as well as unlawful possession of a firearm. The jury found special circumstance, firearm, and gang allegations true. The trial court sentenced Magana to two consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole for the murders, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement on the Brady murder, plus a determinate term of 10 years.

In 2017, father Aaron Hernandez and mother Denise Gaytan stipulated to joint legal custody of their young son L.U. (born 2016), with liberal visitation for father. In 2019, mother requested permission to move with L.U. to New Mexico, which father opposed. The trial court held a hearing on the request, during which it heard testimony from mother, father, several of father’s family members, and a Parenting Plan Assessment Evaluator.