CA Unpub Decisions

In August 2004, in case No. 04-1944, defendant Joseph Edward Robinson attempted to take a 1970 Chevrolet parked in Yreka. Three months later, in November 2004, in case No. 04-2253, defendant got into a physical altercation with a female and her neighbor in Yreka. He wielded a baseball bat during the incident.People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The judgment is affirmed.

James C., father of the minor, appeals from orders terminating his parental rights. Appellant contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding the minor was likely to be adopted and that his due process rights were violated by orders limiting the minors testimony and permitting the minor to testify in closed session. Court affirm.

Appellant, the father of two of the minors, appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating his parental rights. Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that one of the minors was adoptable. He also contends the juvenile court erred by denying his request for a continuance of the hearing. Concluding these contentions are without merit, Court affirm.

A jury convicted Larry Gene Beightol of two counts of committing a lewd act with a child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)), and found true an allegation that he committed the offenses against more than one victim (Pen. Code, 667.61, subd. (e)(5)). The court sentenced Beightol to a term of 15 years to life in prison for each of counts 1 and 2, with the sentence on count 2 to run concurrently. On appeal, Beightol contends the court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his prior acts of molestation under Evidence Code sections 1108 and 1101 to prove his propensity to commit sex crimes and his intent during the present offenses. Court affirm.

Dennis B. appeals an order of the juvenile court denying his request to have his minor daughter, Isabel C., placed with him as a nonoffending, noncustodial parent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2. (Statutory references are to the Welf. and Inst. Code.) Dennis contends: (1) the court erred by denying his request for judicial notice of a judgment of paternity entered in the family court; (2) the judgment of paternity entitled him to all the rights and obligations of paternity, including placement of Isabel; and (3) the court erroneously relied on In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435 to find he was a biological, rather than presumed, father. Court affirm the order.

Alaster Rea and Anita Rea (collectively plaintiffs) and Paul Emerson II entered into a lease agreement with an option to purchase. Perrie Mundy of Re/Max Advantage worked as the real estate agent for both parties. When plaintiffs stopped paying rent after having discovered some problems with the house, Emerson initiated an unlawful detainer proceeding. Plaintiffs never exercised the purchase option. Plaintiffs filed their action against Emerson, Mundy, and Re/Max for various causes of action, including breach of contract, specific performance, and fraud. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted the motions for a few reasons, including that plaintiffs could not show that they were entitled to specific performances or damages without having exercised the option to purchase the property. In challenging the trial courts rulings, plaintiffs argue that triable issues of material fact existed as to whether defendants had knowledge of the defects and whether they suffered damages as a result of defendants conduct. Court conclude that, because any remaining factual disputes concerned the option to purchase the property, plaintiffs failure to exercise the option was fatal to their case. Court affirm the judgment.

Joy H., also known as Joy R (hereafter Joy H.), filed this action to annul her 14-year marriage with Tammy C., who also was known as John R. (hereafter Tammy C.).[1] Tammy C. presented herself as a male, but was a biological female who had never had a sex change. Because Joy H. believed that she had entered a valid marriage with a man, she contends that she qualified as a putative spouse and had community property interest in the family home, which was purchased in Tammy C.s name. The trial court granted the annulment pursuant to the parties stipulation, but rejected Joy H.s argument concerning her interest in the family home.
On appeal, Joy H. claims that the trial court erred in finding that she was not a putative spouse. Joy H. also raises a number of other errors at trial, including the following: the courts failure to order Tammy C. to provide financial disclosure; the courts failure to order child support; the lack of service of process of Tammy C.s modified response; the courts inappropriate exclusion of certain items of evidence; the courts failure to rule on her request for attorneys fees for the child custody and visitation issues; and judicial bias. For the reasons discussed below, Court reject Joy H.s claims and affirm the courts findings and orders.

Defendant shot to death his wife, Jacqueline, and his wifes grandson, Gilbert. The jury convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder ( 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that defendant personally and intentionally used and discharged a firearm, causing death. ( 12022.53, subd. (d).) The jury also found defendant was legally sane when he committed the offenses. The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate prison term of 100 years to life with the possibility of parole, consisting of four consecutive terms of 25 years to life.
All of defendants arguments on appeal challenge the convictions for first degree murder, specifically: the sufficiency of the evidence; the instruction given on the issue of circumstantial evidence of specific intent; the prosecutors closing argument concerning the mens reas for premeditated first degree murder; and cumulative error. After due consideration of the record and the law, Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Kristy Johnson (Johnson) filed an action for legal malpractice against her former attorney, defendant and respondent Robert James Skousen (Skousen), and his law firm, Skousen & Skousen (the law firm). The trial court sustained Skousens demurrer without leave to amend. Johnson appeals, contending that the demurrer should have been overruled. Court reverse with directions.

Defendant and Appellant H.W. appeals from an order of the juvenile court finding him to be the alleged father of Jada W. He contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found him to be the alleged father rather than the presumed father. Defendant J.S. (Mother) also filed a notice of appeal; however, she agrees with the juvenile court that the evidence showed H.W. to be an alleged father. Court therefore dismiss her appeal, find her to be a respondent in H.W.s appeal, and deem her appellants opening brief to be a respondents brief. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, Court affirm the order.

Following an administrative hearing during which petitioner and appellant Matthew Seifert challenged his employment discharge as a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer, the California State Personnel Board (Board) affirmed Seiferts discharge. Seifert filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court challenging the Boards affirmance of the CHPs termination of Seifert. After a hearing on Seiferts writ petition, the trial court dismissed Matthew Seiferts writ petition and entered judgment in favor of the CHP (the real party in interest) and the Board. Seifert appeals the judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate seeking to reverse his discharge. Seifert contends his discharge constituted an excessive penalty, and therefore this court should overrule the trial courts denial of his writ petition and remand the matter to the trial court for issuance of a writ of mandate compelling the Board to impose a lesser penalty. Court conclude termination of Seiferts employment was not a grossly excessive penalty. Seifert was caught falsely reporting over a two-year period his sick leave as vacation time and tampering with CHP computer records and the sergeants log. Such conduct reflected a propensity for dishonesty warranting Seiferts dismissal. There being no abuse of discretion in the Board upholding Seiferts discharge, Court affirm the judgment.

S.M. (Mother) appeals from a judgment concerning three children: Asia and I.A., twins born in December 2003, when Mother was 17 years old; and A.A., born in March 2005, when Mother was 18 years old.[1] Mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights. She also raises an issue regarding proper notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Title 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. Court affirm the judgment.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of unlawful taking and driving a Lincoln Aviator on December 23, 2005, and taking and driving a GMC Envoy on December 27, 2005 (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a); counts 1 and 7). As to both vehicle thefts, defendant was convicted of willful participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (a); counts 5 and 11).
When defendant drove off in the Aviator, the victims 10 month old child was sitting in the backseat. As a consequence, defendant was convicted of misdemeanor false imprisonment of the child victim ( 236; a lesser offense of count 9) and child endangerment ( 273a, subd. (a); count 10). Defendants conviction on count 5, for violation of section 186.22, subdivision (a), is reversed as a lesser included offense of count 4. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

On February 23, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code sections 859a and 1192.7,[1]defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of section 288.5(a), continuous sexual abuse which occurred from August 1998 through August 2000. That count also alleged a section 1203.066(b) charge of three or more sexual acts with the victim under the age of 14 years pursuant to section 288, as charged in the felony complaint filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County. Thereafter, on November 16, 2006, defendant was committed to state prison for six years less custody credits.
Court have now concluded it's independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.