CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Albert Lee Holmes (Holmes) appeals from a judgment entered following his plea of no contest. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. Court find no arguable issue and affirm.

A patient at a state hospital is awaiting a determination whether he is competent to stand trial. The patient is legally entitled to call himself Jesus Christ. He insists on doing so with other patients, which leads to a number of incidents involving physical violence. The medical authorities at the hospital apply for judicial approval to administer an antipsychotic drug to the patient against his will. The trial court grants the approval, which the defendant appeals. Although defendants counsel is exceptionally earnest in the array of arguments she advances, there is but one issue before uswhether the trial courts order is supported by substantial evidence. Court conclude that the order has more than the requisite amount of support in the record, and in light of that conclusion Court affirm.

Appellant for Livable Neighborhoods (SFLN) challenges the denial of its petition for a writ of mandate to compel respondent City and County of San Francisco (the City) to set aside the approval of the housing element of its general plan and to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) Appellant claims that there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that amendments to the housing element may have a significant impact on the environment, thus requiring the preparation of an EIR. Court agree and reverse.

A modification decision.

On July 1, 2004, defendant was arrested for failing to update his registration as a sex offender (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(D)) and for possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350). Charges were filed in Santa Clara County. Defendant pleaded no contest on September 2, 2004, was convicted of the charged offenses and was sentenced to a term of 12 months in county jail.
Approximately three weeks later, on September 22, 2004, a warrant for defendants arrest was filed in San Francisco, based on three counts of robbery allegedly occurring on February 4, 2004. No criminal complaint was filed at that time. On March 4, 2005, defendant was released from custody on the Santa Clara convictions, and was then arrested on the San Francisco charges. The complaint on the San Francisco charges was filed on March 8, 2005, and defendant was arraigned the same day. The order dismissing the complaint is reversed.

Diane Mills (Mills) sued her estate planning attorney, Charles A. Triay (Triay), for professional negligence, claiming he allowed Mills to select as her attorney in fact an untrustworthy individual without adequate investigation of his background. The trial court granted Triays motion for summary judgment and Court affirm.

Diane Mills (Mills) sued her estate planning attorney, Charles A. Triay (Triay), for professional negligence, claiming he allowed Mills to select as her attorney-in-fact an untrustworthy individual without adequate investigation of his background. The trial court granted Triays motion for summary judgment and Court affirm.

Appellant Brit Syndicates, Ltd. (Brit) appeals from the judgment entered below after the trial court granted respondent Noveltex, Inc.s (Noveltex) motion for summary judgment. Court affirm the judgment.

In this juvenile dependency case, Court hold that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in denying a motion by the minors mother to modify the order placing the minor with prospective adoptive parents, and in entering an order terminating the parental rights of the minors parents in order to free him for adoption. Unfortunately, the final implementation of the juvenile courts order must be delayed, at a minimum, because of the failure of the social services agency and the juvenile court to comply fully with their duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Appellant (Father) was incarcerated a few months after the commencement of a proceeding under section 300 of the Welfare & Institutions Code regarding his two children with Nancy M. (Mother). The proceeding was eventually terminated and custody granted to Mother. Because Father was being held at a prison nearly 300 miles from Mothers home at the time of termination, he requested the juvenile court to require Mother to bring the children to visit him at the prison twice a year. Although the court refused to enter the requested order, it did direct Mother to cooperate with Fathers family members in the event they sought to take the children to visit Father. Father challenges the refusal to compel Mother to make these visits. Court affirm.

Appellant was convicted, pursuant to a plea of no contest, on two counts of committing a lewd act on a child. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) He contends the trial court violated his due process rights by not scheduling this matter for a competency hearing. Court reject this contention and affirm.

James Laing petitions for review (Labor Code, 5952) of the decision after reconsideration of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Board) amending the findings, award and order issued in his case. The Board held that [t]he spinal surgery recommended by [Laings] treating physician is not reasonably required to cure or relieve [Laing] from the effects of the injury. We hold that the Board improperly applied the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine guidelines (ACOEM guidelines) to conclude that the surgery was unnecessary, and that, on this record, the Board was required to remand the case for compliance with the second opinion procedures mandated by section 4062, subdivision (b).The portion of the Boards decision amending the findings, award and order of September 25, 2006 is annulled. The matter is remanded to the Board with directions to issue a new decision after reconsideration remanding the matter for the random selection of a second opinion orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon by the administrative director.
_________________________

Using a butcher knife, defendant Bertran Wilson eviscerated his roommate Steven Traylor. The People prosecuted defendant for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The People further alleged that defendant had personally used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury. At trial, the key issue was whether defendant acted in self defense. Both men testified to their respective versions of the events; both were impeached by inconsistent statements and contradictory evidence.
Court cannot say that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The parties framed self-defense as the key issue. The record contains evidence from which a properly instructed jury could entertain a reasonable doubt about whether defendant acted in self-defense. Court therefore conclude that the trial courts error in answering the jurys inquiry with an incomplete and misleading statement about the burden of proof was prejudicial. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment.