CA Unpub Decisions

Ana M. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights and freeing for adoption her now eight-year-old daughter Brianna M. Mother contends Brianna is not adoptable and the juvenile court should have applied the benefit exception (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) to select a permanent plan other than adoption. Finding substantial evidence supports the order, Court affirm.

Plaintiff DVD Copy Control Association, Inc., has sued defendant Kaleidescape, Inc., for breach of a license contract. Within the action, defendant unsuccessfully moved to unseal documents in a civil case that plaintiff had maintained against others but dismissed with prejudice. Defendant appeals from the order denying its motion. Court affirm the order.

T.L. (mother) and Christopher L. (father) appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights to their daughter Karma. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) Mother and father contend that the Department of Family and Childrens Services (Department) did not comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.664) because it sent one of the required notices to the wrong address. Court have determined, by reference to the record in a case involving mothers older child, that actual notice was provided. Accordingly, Court affirm the order.

Michael Perez appeals from a judgment of conviction upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) with intentional discharge and personal use of a firearm ( 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e); 12022.5, subd. (a)(1) and possession of a handgun by an ex-felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and in excluding impeachment evidence of a prosecution witness. Court affirm.

A jury found defendant Alfredo Valenzuela guilty of four counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted robbery of an inhabited dwelling and one count of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a); 664/212.5, subd. (a)); 460, subd. (a).) The jury found true the special circumstances that the murders had been committed during an attempted robbery and a burglary. ( 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) The jury also found true the special circumstances of multiple murders. ( 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) It found true allegations that a principal had been armed with a firearm during the commission or attempted commission of the crimes. ( 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of life without the possibility of parole on each of the murder convictions. It sentenced defendant to a two year term on the attempted robbery conviction and a four year term on the burglary conviction, but stayed execution of those sentences pursuant to section 654. Court affirm.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing on allegations that appellant Allen J. committed three counts of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)), the juvenile court sustained the allegations in counts one and two of the subsequent petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Appellant challenges the juvenile courts restriction on cross-examination of the victim and requests that the case be remanded for correction of the minors maximum period of confinement. Court affirm the juvenile courts order.

The trial court denied appellants anti SLAPP motion to strike respondents cross complaint for defamation. Court find that respondents cross-complaint is not based on statements made by appellants in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2), and therefore affirm the denial of the motion to strike.

Appellants Lincoln and LaTonya Finley appeal an award of attorney fees and costs granted by the trial court after this court affirmed permanent injunctions entered against them precluding violence or threats of violence. (Hanson-Briggs Law Group v. Finley (June 27, 2006, A110200, A110263, A110270) [nonpub. opn.] (hereafter Hanson-Briggs.) Because the trial court did not abuse its vast discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs, Court affirm.

Petitioners Charles E. Bell and Dorthy Jean Bell (petitioners) appeal from the probate courts order awarding them compensation as personal representatives of the estate of Marcia Everhart. The petitioners contend that the court miscalculated the compensation to which they were statutorily entitled pursuant to Probate Code section 10800, improperly surcharged them for paying an outstanding debt judgment against the deceased, and abused its discretion by denying them compensation for extraordinary services. Court agree that the probate court miscalculated the petitioners compensation under section 10800. On all other issues, Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant appeals from a restitution order entered after he pled no contest to one count of second degree burglary. Because the restitution order pertains to a charge that was dismissed, Court vacate the order.

A jury convicted Patrick Paul of the second-degree murder of Dwhight Gary Davidson. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 189; all further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code). The jury rejected a special allegation that Paul killed Davidson to benefit and promote a criminal street gang. ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).) Paul admitted having served two prior prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him to a total term of 16 years to life. Paul appeals, contending there is no substantial evidence of malice to support his murder conviction, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on imperfect defense of another, and his trial counsel gave him inadequate assistance by not requesting such an instruction. Court find no error and affirm.

After being injured when his treadmill broke, the plaintiff sued the retailer and the manufacturer for personal injury. He later added consumer protection causes of action and sought to obtain class certification pertaining to the consumer protection causes of action only. The trial court denied the motion for class certification, finding that (1) there was no ascertainable class and (2) plaintiff did not supply an adequate class representative. Plaintiff appeals, disputing both conclusions. Court affirm because plaintiff did not supply an adequate class representative. Having so concluded, Court need not consider whether plaintiff defined an ascertainable class.

A jury convicted defendant Kenneth Lee Adams of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, 290). Defendant admitted three prior prison term allegations, and the trial court sentenced him to six years in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends: 1) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for failing to register; 2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the meaning of residence and the transient registration requirements under section 290; 3) the jury was improperly instructed on the knowledge element of section 290; 4) the trial court erred in giving CALJIC No. 3.30 to the jury; 5) section 290 is void for vagueness as applied to defendant; and 6) his upper term sentence violates the principles of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi). Court reject the contentions and affirm.

In this marital dissolution proceeding, Aaron Feldman appeals from the trial court's order requiring him to pay sanctions and attorney fees based on his nondisclosure of financial information to respondent Elena Feldman. As Court explain, Court conclude that the appeal lacks merit, and accordingly Court affirm.