CA Unpub Decisions

Steven Ketterman and Diane Noakes married in 1984, had three children at their separation in 2000, and dissolved their marriage under a marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated into a judgment of February 2002. This appeal by Ketterman is from an order of January 14, 2005, following trial on each partys order to show cause (OSC). The order resolved many issues, and Ketterman challenges only certain parts determining his income for support and fees purposes, and determining child support arrearages and reimbursable medical expenses. He claims that support arrearages were not properly before the court, that various factual determinations about his income lack substantial-evidence support, that a hearsay report was erroneously and prejudicially considered, and that medical expenses were not reimbursable under the terms of the MSA. Court strike that part of the order of January 14, 2005 directing Ketterman to reimburse $5,202.69 in uninsured medical costs. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered following a jury trial on three drug related charges. His appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and, after being advised of his right to do so, defendant has filed no supplemental brief. Having conducted an independent review of the record, Court find no issue of colorable merit and affirm.

After the trial court denied his Penal Code section 1538.5 motion, appellant pled guilty to one count of a four count information, a count charging possession of marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359.[1] Imposition of sentence on appellant was suspended and he was placed on probation for a period of three years. Appellant appeals and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asks this court to examine the record and determine if there are any issues disclosed by it which deserve further briefing. We have done so, find none, and hence affirm. We have also reviewed a subsequent filing made by appellant personally which, although labeled as a Correction of Record, Court treat as if it were a brief. For the reasons stated below, Court also find nothing in it which requires further briefing.

Dalina C. appeals from a juvenile court order providing that Dalinas son Jordan C. remain a dependent of the juvenile court. The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) agrees with Dalina that there is insufficient evidence to support the challenged order. Accordingly, Court reverse.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, defendant Benith Davis was awaiting trial on felony charges of being a past convicted felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021), and possessing heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the firearm charge, with an indicated sentence of 16 months; the drug charge was dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for 16 months, in accordance with the parties plea agreement. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he obtained a certificate of probable cause. His sole contention is that his suppression motion was erroneously denied. Court find this contention to be without merit, and affirm.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of first degree burglary, contending that the denial of his motion for a continuance of the jury trial was an abuse of discretion. Defense counsel asserted he was unprepared to proceed because he was unable to review all of the relevant evidence and subpoena additional documents due to his recent assignment to the case and additional caseload. Court conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance and that defense counsel was sufficiently prepared to present an adequate defense. Hence, Court affirm.

Defendant filed a request for a domestic violence protective order against Debbie Day requiring Day to cease harassing him and to move from the residence they shared. Day filed her own request seeking the same relief against Mallinen. After taking evidence from the two, the family court denied both parties requests for a move-out order and Mallinens request for a stay away order, but it issued a limited stay-away order against Mallinen. Mallinen appeals from the denial of his requests and the grant of a protective order against him. Court affirm.

Peter Silverbrand appeals from a summary judgment in favor of respondents, the State of California (State) and its health care provider employees, on the grounds that he failed to file this action within the statute of limitations prescribed by the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, 900 et seq.), that the statute of limitations was not tolled by his service of a notice of intention to sue for medical negligence and that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a claim with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board) and this action. Court affirm in part and reverse in part.

This is the second time this case has been before this court. In 2005, this court reversed a post-judgment order awarding respondents Paul and Susan Betouliere attorney's fees in the amount of $139,389. (Betouliere v. Bauman (March 7, 2005, B174320) [nonpub. opn.] [hereafter "Bauman I"].) We held that the Betoulieres' motion for attorney's fees, filed two years after entry of the judgment, was untimely. Court affirmed the trial court's order striking the Betoulieres' cost bill in the amount of $29,693, on the ground that it was untimely as well.
Bauman appeals, contending that the trial court erred by (1) granting the Betoulieres' motion for relief under section 473; (2) denying Bauman's subsequent motion for reconsideration; and (3) denying Bauman's motion for attorney's fees and costs for prevailing in Bauman I. We reverse and remand with instructions. Court reverse the trial court's order of June 23, 2005, granting the Betoulieres' motion for relief under section 473 and the order of July 15, 2005, denying Bauman's motion for appellate attorney's fees and costs. Court remand this case with instructions to deny the Betoulieres' motion for relief under section 473, to grant Bauman's motion for an award of appellate attorney's fees and costs incurred in successfully prosecuting Bauman I, and to award Bauman reasonable appellate attorney's fees and costs incurred in successfully prosecuting the instant appeal.

This is a legal malpractice action in which the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. Court affirm.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Angel A. Valencia and Carmen Valencia (defendants). The suit concerns defendants nonjudicial foreclosure sale on commercial real property that defendants sold to plaintiff in early 1989. In her suit against defendants, plaintiff alleged that the parties had entered into a forbearance agreement whereby plaintiff was to be given an additional opportunity to bring current her delinquent payments on the purchase price in exchange for sequential extensions of the pending foreclosure sale. She alleged that defendants breached that agreement and thereby caused her to lose the property in a foreclosure sale. In her complaint, she pled four causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) fraud and (4) conversion of certain personal property.
Our examination of the appellate record shows plaintiff has raised triable issues of material fact that prevent entry of a summary judgment in defendants favor.

Retired Los Angeles Police Department Officer Larry Voelker, who is the plaintiff and appellant in this case, brought an action against defendant and respondent Ramon Morales on the theory that a sports utility vehicle negligently driven by Morales struck him, as Voelker was working as a traffic control officer in a film shoot. The jury found in favor of Morales. The court entered judgment accordingly, including an award of $50,189.85 in costs. Court affirm the judgment and the award of costs.

This is a conservatees appeal from the order imposing the conservatorship and appointing his son and sister as conservators. Court affirm.

Willie Foster (Foster) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf., 11351.5) and his admissions he had previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b) to (i), 1170.12, subds. (a) to (d)), and had previously served two separate prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Foster to eight years in prison. Court have examined the entire record submitted by Foster and are satisfied that Fosters appellate counsel has complied fully with counsels responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284 [145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
The judgment is affirmed.