CA Unpub Decisions

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant Allan Joseph Cianci pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to two years in state prison. He appeals from his sentence, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in denying him probation. Court find no abuse of discretion, and affirm the judgment.

Georgia Fuller appeals from a judgment entered after the court determined in a nonjury trial that she was liable for taking assets in bad faith from the Estate of Frances F. Cueny (Cueny Estate). She contends that the ruling was not supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Homer Alvin Marchbanks, Jr. of receiving a stolen vehicle and vandalism. (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a), 594, subd. (a).) In his first appeal, we held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendants request for new counsel to file a motion for new trial. Court remanded the matter with directions to appoint independent counsel for the purpose of filing a new trial motion. (People v. Marchbanks (Sept. 9, 2005, A107811) [nonpub. opn.].) Independent counsel filed the motion, which the trial court denied. Defendant now contends he is entitled to a new trial because his trial counsel was ineffective and the prosecutor committed misconduct. Court disagree and affirm.

Pamela P. (Mother) and Loren B. (Father) (hereinafter collectively Parents) appeal a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights and finding their daughter, Samantha B., likely to be adopted (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26). Mother also contends the court erroneously denied her section 388 petition for modification. Parents contend the court erred in failing to apply the continued beneficial relationship exception to adoption ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) Court reject the contentions and affirm.

Defendant pleaded no contest to a charge of second degree murder. On the morning of defendants sentencing, the trial court received a handwritten letter from defendant seeking to withdraw her plea. In the letter, defendant claimed that a witness to the killing had admitted to an investigator that she had lied in prior accounts. The letter did not identify the investigator or the witness, nor did it describe the nature of the claimed admission. The trial court denied the request to withdraw defendants plea after concluding that her decision to plead was undertaken freely and voluntarily.
Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request to withdraw her plea and that her attorney provided ineffective assistance by not speaking in support of her request. Court affirm.

Taiheara O. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her son E. M. She urges that the court erred in denying her motion for a continuance so that she could file a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 motion, and that the court erred in choosing adoption as the permanent plan. Court affirm.

Burton H. Wolfe filed three separate notices of appeal from his first lawsuit (Wolfe I) against the San Francisco Food Bank (Food Bank) and Americas Second Harvest (Second Harvest) after the lower court ruled that he was a vexatious litigant and then dismissed his complaint after he failed to post security pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391 et seq.[2] While Wolfe I was pending and automatically stayed under section 391.1, Wolfe filed a second lawsuit against these same parties (Wolfe II). Wolfe filed two separate notices of appeal,[3]from the courts orders dismissing his complaint against Food Bank and Second Harvest in Wolfe II. On this courts own motion, we consolidate the appeals from Wolfe I with the appeals of Wolfe II. In his appeals, Wolfe challenges the lower courts application of collateral estoppel to the finding that he was a vexatious litigant and makes various constitutional and other challenges to the application of section 391.1 to him, an indigent litigant in propria persona. Court affirm the judgments in Wolfe I and Wolfe II.

Appellant County of Sonoma (the County) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for a peremptory writ of mandate. The County sought to overturn a decision of respondent Sonoma County Assessment Appeals Board (the Board) setting the purchase price as the full market value of certain real property purchased by real parties in interest and respondents Fountaingrove LLC, Ken and Donna Martin, and Willard and Nancy Carle, impacting the assessment of the property. Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Joe Bob Schmidt appeals from an order under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, granting a special motion to strike filed by defendants Claude Wyle, the law firm of Choulous, Choulous & Wyle, and Gary Redenbacher. Court conclude defendants established that Schmidts claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution arise out of protected activity and that Schmidt failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on either of his claims. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Christian G. appeals following his adjudication as a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. He contends that the juvenile court committed prejudicial error in permitting him to be unconstitutionally shackled during the dispositional hearing. Court affirm.

This is plaintiff Lillie Hurds second appeal from a defense judgment after jury trial in her Marvin action (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660) against her former cohabitant, defendant Ralph Alexander. Court dismissed the first appeal because plaintiffs notice of appeal was untimely. Court dismiss the second appeal for the same reason because Court do not have jurisdiction due to an untimely appeal of the issues raised.

Appellant, as personal representative of the Estate of Omega Cole, appeals the trial courts dismissal of her action against the Bank of America (BofA) to recover damages for alleged breach of contract in the handling of the decedents bank accounts. Court affirm.

John Gimbel appeals from a civil injunction prohibiting him from harassing respondent Frank Villarreal. Appellant contends (1) the injunction was not supported by adequate evidence, (2) the injunction violated his free speech rights, and (3) the court erred when it declined to consider certain evidence. Court reject these arguments and affirm.

Elio Antonio Valle sued Yolanda Aguilar for defamation. Aguilar filed a special motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, known as the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, to strike Valles defamation claim. The trial court denied the motion and Aguilar appeals. Court conclude that the conduct underlying the defamation claim is protected under the anti-SLAPP statute and that the statute of limitations prevents Valle from establishing a probability of prevailing on his claim. Court therefore reverse the judgment.