CA Unpub Decisions

Cross defendant appeals from the judgment entered after a bench trial where he was ordered to remove his mobilehome from the mobilehome site leased by Marta Laughlin at Malibus Paradise Cove Mobilehome Park. Because two previous judgments determining that Laughlin was the rightful tenant of that site are res judicata of the issue, Court affirm.

Appellants filed a complaint against respondent Carson Redevelopment Agency (the Agency) seeking to quiet title to a 45 unit senior housing complex located in Carson. According to the complaint, the Padillas are the owners of the property and the Agency is the beneficiary of a deed of trust covering it. The Padillas contend that the Agency wrongfully refused to record a reconveyance. A demurrer was sustained and the issue raised is straightforward: whether, assuming the truth of the material facts pled, the complaint stated a cause of action. (See Montclair Parkowners Assn. v. City of Montclair (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 784, 790.) The parties, who were involved in related litigation for three years, press for resolution of factual issues pertaining to the scope of the deed of trust, although neither that document nor the agreement setting forth the underlying obligation was attached to the complaint or included in judicially noticed documents presented to the trial court. It is a basic precept of appellate law that documents not before the trial court are beyond the scope of appellate review, and factual statements in the briefs are disregarded when not supported by the record. (Pulver v. Avco Financial Services (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 622, 632.) Accordingly, Court cannot resolve whether the deed of trust secures something more than the debt described in the Padillas complaint and, if so, whether either partys failure to raise that obligation in prior litigation precludes it from raising it now. Based on the information properly before us, Court conclude that the Padillas complaint stated a cognizable cause of action. Court therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant appeals from judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subds. (b)-(i).) He was sentenced to prison for four years, consisting of the middle term of two years doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law. He did not request a certificate of probable cause.
Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, appellants appeal following his no contest plea is limited to issues relating to search and seizure and issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to his plea. (See People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780. Further, issues cognizable on appeal are confined to matters contained in the appellate record.

Appellant, a minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court declaring him to be a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) and ordering camp placement after finding that appellant was guilty of the sale or transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)). On appeal, appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was guilty of sale or transportation of marijuana without the testimony of a chemist. Court disagree and affirm the order.

Mother, appeals from the termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 with respect to her daughter, Evelia C. Mother asserts she was denied her due process right to notice of the section 366.26 hearing and the juvenile court erred in proceeding with the hearing after learning she was incarcerated and there was no waiver of her attendance. Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) argues defects in the notice of appeal require dismissal because mother failed to sign the notice of appeal and the record does not reflect her attorney had authority to sign on her behalf, because mother did not purport to appeal from a prior ruling that notice was properly served, and because mother failed to raise the claimed error in the court below. Court agree with mother that the order terminating parental rights denied her due process and therefore reverse.

Mother appeals from the courts denial of her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking reunification services with her daughter, M. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211), during which he personally used a handgun ( 12022.53, subd. (b)) and inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)), and his admission he had previously been convicted of a serious felony ( 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d), 667, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced Carrillo to 24 years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant (mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court sustaining a petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code Section 300 and declaring Yesenia G. a dependent child under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d). Mother does not dispute the courts finding of jurisdiction but contests the courts sustaining of a count under section 300, subdivision (b), which alleged that mothers mental and emotional problems rendered her incapable of caring for Yesenia. Mother further contests the courts decision not to place Yesenia in mothers custody. Court affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

Alexander Dunetz (Dunetz) appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of attempted possession of a controlled substance (Pen. Code, 664, Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted Dunetz 36 months probation. Court affirm the judgment.

Rosa F., mother of dependent children Emilia D. (born in 1998), Selena D. (born in 1999), and Emiliano D. (born in 2000) (collectively, the children),[1]petitions for extraordinary writ review of orders setting a permanency planning hearing and terminating reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.22, 366.26;[2]California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Rosa contends that the evidence does not support the juvenile courts findings that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided her with adequate reunification services and that her children would be at substantial risk if returned to her custody; she also maintains that the court erred by failing to exercise its discretion to extend reunification services. Court deny the writ.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the San Joaquin County Juvenile Court found that minor K.M. was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed the offenses of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a)), robbery (Pen. Code, 211), vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property, to wit, the vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)).
On appeal, the minor contends the juvenile court erred by sustaining allegations for both vehicle theft and receiving a stolen vehicle over defense objection. The People concede the error. Court accept the concession, and find an additional sentencing error requiring correction.

As part of a negotiated plea, defendant Ronald Edwin Albee pleaded no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459) in case No. 001892, and to separate counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)), in case Nos. 004652 and 004108. The trial court suspended an aggregate prison term of four years and four months, and placed defendant on probation for five years, subject to various conditions.
Defendant subsequently admitted to violating probation, and the trial court imposed the original four year four month sentence and a $600 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).
On appeal, defendant contends drug treatment fees imposed pursuant to the original no contest pleas should be stricken and the abstract incorrectly lists the date of conviction. Court order the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the correct date of conviction and to correct the orders of probation in case Nos. 004108 and 004652.

A modification decision.

Appellant, the mother of A.M. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile courts findings and orders made at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 360, subd. (d), 395.) Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support removal of the minor. Court affirm.