CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Jorge B. appeals from a September 12, 2006, order committing him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (JJ). He asserts, and the Attorney General concedes, that the order must be modified by striking certain probationary conditions imposed after the court committed appellant to JJ. Court agree and modify the order accordingly. In all other respects, court affirm.

Appellant Veronica B. contends the juvenile court erred in entering an order that terminated appellants parental rights as to her young son Jeremiah C. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.)Appellant contends that problems in arranging her visitation with Jeremiah prevented her from visiting regularly or establishing a parental bond with him, and led to the termination of her parental rights. Court find no error, and affirm.

After agreeing to a negotiated disposition, defendant Joseph John Nieder pleaded no contest to 13 counts alleging sexual offenses involving three minor girls. He unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his plea and was sentenced to 28 years in state prison. He filed a timely appeal. Defendants counsel filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Court have reviewed the record on appeal, find that there are no arguable issues to be briefed, and affirm the judgment.

Oscar B. (father) petitions (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452; Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (l))[1]for review of an order of January 31, 2007, terminating reunification services and setting a plan selection hearing under section 366.26 (a .26 hearing) for his infant daughter, Jasmine B. He challenges findings of detriment from return, and failure to make substantive progress in services. Court deny the petition.

Robert A., father of the minor Skyler A., seeks extraordinary writ relief from an order terminating reunification services and setting a permanent plan hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding that Robert was provided or offered reasonable services. Court disagree with his contention and deny the petition.

Nicolas B., born in March 2003, and Shane B., born in August 2001, were made dependents of the Lake County Juvenile Court in October and December, 2005, respectively. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300.) Pursuant to rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court, their mother, Nicole B. has filed a petition for extraordinary writ review of an order setting a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan pursuant to section 366.26 (hereafter .26 hearing). She contends the court erroneously denied her April 2006 section 388 petition requesting placement of the children with their maternal grandmother and failed to give the maternal grandmother preferential placement consideration. She also contends the Lake County Department of Social Services (Department) failed to act as an impartial arm of the juvenile court, depriving her of her rights to fundamental fairness and accurate fact finding. Court reject the contentions and deny the petition.

A jury found William King to be a sexually violent predator (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) and the court civilly committed him to a secure facility for two years. King appealed, but his term of commitment ended before the record on appeal was complete and his opening brief was filed. King contends that (I) because of the delays in completing the record, we should reverse the judgment, dismiss the proceedings with prejudice, and hold his appeal is not moot despite his having completed his commitment. He also contends that the court erred in (II) allowing the prosecutions experts to rely on hearsay reports of his most recent offenses; (III) allowing the experts to offer legal opinions; and (IV) denying him his right to self-representation at trial. In addition to disputing Kings contentions, the Attorney General moved to dismiss Kings appeal as moot, arguing that King caused much of the delay in completing the record and raised no recurrent issues that otherwise would evade review. Court ordered the motion to be considered concurrently with the appeal. Court agree with the Attorney General that Kings appeal is moot and dismiss it.

Plaintiff Nina Antonova, in pro. per., appeals from orders dismissing her malicious prosecution action against two attorneys, Stephen C. Duringer and Sam Chandra, upon the granting of their respective motions to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute; undesignated section references are to that code). Court reverse the order with respect to Duringer but affirm with respect to Chandra.

Plaintiff Norda R. Freeman appeals from judgments dismissing defendants Arlester G. King (King) and Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. (Wachovia) after the superior court sustained defendants demurrers without leave to amend. As to defendant Wachovia, Court affirm. As to defendant King, Court reverse the dismissal of the quiet title and declaratory relief claims only and remand for further proceedings on those causes of action. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment as to King.

Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Amusement Industry, Inc., and Smart Real Estate, and cross-defendant Allen Alevy (collectively buyers) appeal from the judgment of rescission of a contract to purchase real property and for damages and attorneys fees entered in favor of defendants and cross-complainants (collectively sellers). They contend the trial court erred by: (1) finding buyers made certain judicial admissions; (2) excluding certain evidence; (3) calculating compensatory damages; (4) awarding punitive damages; and (5) awarding attorneys fees. Court affirm.

Defendants and appellants Terrell Allison and Ollie James Bledsoe, Jr., appeal from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in their convictions for second degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and commercial burglary. Allison was sentenced to a term of 62 years in prison. Bledsoe was sentenced to a term of 76 years four months in prison.
Allison, joined by Bledsoe where applicable, contends the trial court erred by precluding him from calling his accomplices attorneys as witnesses; failing to exclude testimony as a sanction for the prosecutions purported discovery violations; and denying his motion to bifurcate trial on the gang enhancement. He further asserts that the use of his prior juvenile adjudication as a strike violated his rights to jury trial and due process; the evidence was insufficient to support a Penal Code section 186.22[1]gang enhancement; and section 654 precluded imposition of sentence on count 18 (second degree commercial burglary).
Bledsoe, joined by Allison where applicable, contends his counsel was ineffective for failing to submit a pinpoint instruction regarding plea bargains; the trial court erred by allowing him to be impeached with the facts underlying his prior juvenile adjudication for robbery; there was insufficient evidence to corroborate his accomplices statements regarding the crimes; and the cumulative effect of the alleged errors requires reversal.
Both appellants assert the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions for the robbery of Suwen Cui.
We reverse Bledsoes convictions on counts 19 through 30, related to the North Hills Citibank robbery. Court order Allisons sentence on count 18 stayed pursuant to section 654. In all other respects, Court affirm

Appellants Sylvia Wachtel and Leonard Wachtel (the Wachtels) owned a home located at 2511 Seadrift Court in Port Hueneme (the property) which they sold to respondents Samuel Coy and Laura Coy (the Coys). The Coys subsequently discovered that there had been a severe pigeon infestation in the attic during the Wachtels' ownership of the property. The Coys brought a tort action against the Wachtels alleging they had failed to disclose the infestation and its subsequent eradication. The jury found in favor of the Coys and awarded them economic and punitive damages. The Wachtels filed motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied. They appeal, arguing that their disclosure was adequate; the Coys are not entitled to damages; there was no basis for the punitive damages or attorneys fee awards; the verdicts are inconsistent and Mrs. Wachtel was not professionally negligent. Court reduce the award of economic damages, but otherwise affirm.

Anthony Navarro, also known as Anthony Spencer, appeals from the judgment following his guilty plea to 24 charges, including theft from an elderly adult; forgery; money laundering; grand theft; filing a false or forged instrument; making a false financial statement; obtaining money, labor or property by false pretenses; making, drawing or passing a check with insufficient funds; and identity theft. (Pen. Code, 368, subd. (d); 470, subds. (a), (b); 186.10, subd. (a); 487, subd. (a); 115, subd. (a), 532a, subd. (1); 532, subd. (a); 476a, subd. (a); 530.5, subd. (a).) Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced appellant to 15 years in state prison. Appellant contends that the trial court (1) violated his right to counsel by refusing to allow him to discharge the attorney who represented him when he pleaded guilty and appointing conflict counsel regarding a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and (2) acted without jurisdiction by resentencing him after he filed his notice of appeal. Court hold that the failure to allow appellant to discharge retained counsel was error requiring conditional reversal.

Joseph and Sharona Amin (appellants) appeal an order, entered after confirmation of an arbitration award, directing them to pay Khalilolah and Susan Ghorbani (respondents) $40,000 in attorney fees. Court affirm the order.