CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
Defendants and appellants Paul A. Stabile (Stabile) and Michael J. Mastrovito (Mastrovito) and their attorney Matthew Duncan (Duncan) appeal an order directing the payment of $5,928 in discovery sanctions to plaintiffs and respondents Peggy Rinella and Kirk Rinella (Rinellas) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Because the sanctions were improperly issued on an ex parte basis, the order must be reversed.
|
|
Renauldie C. Caliz appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of count 1, carjacking with the use of a firearm (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a); 1203.6, subd. (a)(1)), and count 2, dissuading a witness from making a report to police (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (b)(1)) arising out of the following: on February 4, 2006, appellant forced victim Adrian Toledo to give him his car keys at gunpoint. Appellant also robbed Toledo of his wallet and told him he would kill Toledo and do something to his family if he called the police. Toledo called the police, who apprehended appellant two hours later. Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.
|
|
Defendant Christopher Blincoe appeals from a default judgment entered after the trial court granted terminating sanctions striking his answer as a result of his failure to respond to discovery. Defendants argument centers around two issues: (1) the willfulness of his conduct (or lack thereof), and (2) the courts abuse of discretion in granting the sanctions. As to the first issue we shall conclude the trial court was not required to make an express finding of willfulness and the record contains substantial evidence that defendants conduct in avoiding discovery was willful. As to the second issue we shall conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing terminating sanctions in this instance.
Defendant also purports to appeal from the trial courts award of attorney fees to plaintiff in the amount of $142,151.50. However, the attorney fees were contained in a post-judgment order from which defendant failed to appeal. Accordingly, Court have no jurisdiction to consider the matter of attorney fees. |
|
Plaintiff Ken Berry appeals from an order awarding $9,106.30 in attorney fees in this action. He contends that the trial court awarded too little in fees because it failed to perform a proper lodestar calculation. (Code Civ. Proc., 1021, further section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm the order.
|
|
Tr.B., father of T.B. and Tr.B., Jr. (Tr.), appeals from the denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 motion.[1] He contends the court abused its discretion in denying his section 388 petition by improperly relying on the childrens bond with their prospective adoptive parents as the sole factor to assess the childrens best interests. Father also appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. ( 366.26.) He contends: 1) the trial court and the social worker violated his due process rights by failing to provide for sibling visitation with the childrens half sibling, E.P.; 2) the social worker violated his due process rights by reducing his visitation with the children after his reunification services had been terminated; and 3) the court abused its discretion in terminating his parental rights, as there was insufficient evidence to find the children adoptable, the court improperly failed to find an exception to adoption based on the bond between father and the children and the court failed to ascertain the wishes of the children. Mother, Juanita R., joins fathers appeal as to this last contention. Court affirm.
|
|
Before she died, Leone Farris encumbered her property with loans secured by deeds of trust. She then transferred to her grandson, Joshua Cornelison, a one-half interest in the property. Following Farriss death, Cornelison asked the probate court to rule that the then-outstanding loan balance secured by the property should be charged first against the estates 50 percent interest, so his interest might remain wholly unencumbered if the estates interest is adequate to pay the balance of the secured debt. The court declined, ruling that Cornelisons property interest is encumbered by the trust deed in proportion to his ownership interest, i.e., fifty percent of the amount secured. Cornelison appeals but fails to establish error. Therefore, Court affirm the judgment (order).
|
|
Justin V.'s father, L.F., appeals an order summarily denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking custody of Justin and an earlier declination of the juvenile court to place Justin with him. Angela R., Justin's mother, joins in L.F.'s appeal and appeals the termination of her parental rights to Justin, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support the court's finding that Justin was adoptable. L.F. joins in Angela's appeal. Court affirm the judgment and order.
|
|
The superior court agreed with the County and granted the Countys motion for summary judgment. In December of 2005 FWA appealed from the courts order granting summary judgment (appeal No. F049479). The superior court entered judgment in favor of the County in January of 2006, and FWA then appealed from the judgment (appeal No. F049860). Court ordered both appeals to be administratively consolidated.
|
|
The court readjudged appellant, Raul C., a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602)[1] after Raul admitted allegations in a petition charging him with possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and violation of probation ( 777). On October 26, 2006, the court committed Raul to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (DJJ), for a maximum term of confinement of seven years six months. On appeal, Raul contends the court abused its discretion when it committed him to the DJJ. Court affirm.
|
|
By information filed July 31, 2006,[1] appellant Jose Leiva was charged with three counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act against a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd.(a); counts 1, 2, 3). A jury convicted appellant on all counts, and the court imposed a prison sentence of three years, consisting of the three-year lower term on count 1 and concurrent three-year terms on each of the remaining counts.
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant himself, in response to this courts invitation to submit supplemental briefing, has submitted a brief in which he argues, as best we can determine, that (1) the court erred in denying his pretrial motion to exclude statements he made to police, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the instant convictions. |
|
The City of Turlock (City) petitions this court for a writ of review (Lab. Code,[1] 5950; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.494) contending the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a decision lacking substantial medical evidence. The City argues the record does not demonstrate a causal connection between a sewage workers employment and his contraction of hepatitis C. Finding substantial evidence supporting the WCABs decision, Court deny the petition.
|
|
Ricky F., biological father of one-year-old Kennedy R., seeks writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of the courts summary denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] petition requesting reunification services, and setting a section 366.26 permanency hearing (.26 hearing). Father contends he made a sufficient showing of changed circumstances and the promotion of Kennedys best interests to warrant a full hearing on his section 388 petition. Because father failed to make a prima facie showing that granting his section 388 petition would serve Kennedys best interests, Court deny fathers petition for a writ of mandate.
|
|
A jury convicted defendant of felony infliction of corporal injury to a cohabitant, and the misdemeanors of making an annoying telephone call and attempted disobedience of a court order. (Pen. Code 273.5, subd. (a), 653m, subd. (a), 166, subd. (a)(4).)[1] After a court trial, the allegations that defendant suffered prior convictions in 1990 and 1995 for serious felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law were found true. ( 667, subd. (b)-(i).) The 1990 prior conviction was subsequently stricken. On the basis of the 1995 prior conviction, the court sentenced defendant to prison for four years, the mitigated term doubled, on the felony, and to concurrent 30 day terms on the misdemeanors.
Defendant argues it was error to use the preliminary hearing transcript and the probation report in the 1995 case to prove, at the 2006 court trial on the prior conviction allegations, that he personally inflicted injury in the 1995 case. Court agree, and reverse. |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
