CA Unpub Decisions

S. H. appeals from disposition orders made on October 31, 2006, leaving her in her parents custody under a plan of family maintenance services following a petition filed on August 28, 2006, alleging physical harm (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300, subd. (a)) and serious emotional damage (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300, subd. (c)) to one of S. H.s older siblings. On appeal, S. H. contends the court erred by denying her motion to continue the disposition hearing. ( 352). Court disagree and affirm the judgment. Court also deny S. H.s request to treat this appeal as a writ.

A jury convicted defendant John Wang of kidnapping for extortion (Pen. Code, 209, subd. (a); all further statutory references are to the Penal Code), second degree robbery ( 211 & 212.5, subd. (c)), and intimidating a witness by force or fear ( 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), and also found he personally used a knife in committing the latter two offenses. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on count 1 and the jury instructions on counts 1 and 2. He also claims the prosecutor committed misconduct while cross-examining him, and his trial attorney failed to competently represent him. Court find all of these claims lack merit and affirm.

The assignee of accounts receivable filed suit against the assignor and the assignors purported debtor. The purported debtor filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The assignee appeals, claiming the trial court erred in granting certain evidentiary sanctions that precluded it from raising a triable issue of material fact in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
Court affirm. The assignee has waived its argument for failure to cite to the record.

Brandi Wheaton Cain sued Radio Shack Corporation for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution after she was arrested, charged with theft, and the charges later dismissed. The trial court granted Radio Shacks special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, i.e., SLAPP suit (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16). On appeal, Wheaton Cain contends: (1) her complaint was not subject to an anti SLAPP motion; and (2) she demonstrated a probability of prevailing. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, Kathey Fyke appeals from an order denying her motion to disqualify Lynne Yates-Carter from representing Richard S. Falcone in the proceeding. In her motion, Kathey took the position that Yates Carter had a fiduciary attorney client relationship with her regarding the subject matter of the action based upon three telephone conversations between Kathey and Peggy Rogan, Yates Carters secretary, which occurred when Kathey was seeking legal representation for this proceeding and Richard was represented in this proceeding by former counsel. Since Kathey fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, Court affirm the order.

Plaintiffs and appellants Shaaron Green Peace and Keith Tisdell appeal from a judgment entered against them after a jury trial. Appellants contend there is no substantial evidence to support the jurys special verdict finding in favor of defendants and respondents Citywide Property Management, Inc. (Citywide), and Mariners Village Condominium Owners Association (Association). Court affirm.

Appellant, the owner of an auto body repair shop, was convicted of two counts of insurance fraud based on his preparation and submission of a repair estimate solicited by an undercover investigator as part of a sting operation. Appellant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to justify the jurys verdict; (2) he cannot be convicted of insurance fraud based on the submission of a claim against a fictitious policy; (3) the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial based on the introduction of improper testimony that there had been prior complaints against appellants shop; and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to prevent or adequately respond to the introduction of that improper testimony. Court reject all of these contentions, and affirm the judgment.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to first degree burglary and admitted several special allegations, including one making him ineligible for parole. (See Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a), 667, subd. (a), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 1203.085, subd. (a); see also former 1192.7, subd. (c)(18) [as amended by Stats. 2002, ch. 606, 3].) His motion to strike a probation ineligibility finding was denied and he was sentenced to nine years in state prison. (See 1203.085, subd. (a).) On appeal, Bustamante contends that by refusing to consider a grant of probation after concluding that it was statutorily prohibited from granting probation, the trial court violated the terms of his plea agreement. He reasons that he is entitled to have an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Court affirm the judgment.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights in relation to his daughter, S.W., to challenge the juvenile courts finding that she was adoptable. Because the finding that S.W. is adoptable was supported by substantial evidence, Court affirm.

Kimberly Ann Knight appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court revoked her probation. Her counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Counsel also informed appellant that she had the right to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.

In January 2006, appellant pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine, (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) tampering with a vehicle or its contents, (Veh. Code, 10852) and driving with a suspended or revoked license, (Veh. Code, 14601.2, subd. (a).)

On March 17, 2006, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation on the condition, inter alia, that she conduct herself in a law-abiding manner, report regularly to her probation officer, and participate in a treatment/therapy program if directed to do so by her probation officer. That same date, appellant signed a written waiver of her right to have any sentencing factors decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Court conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, of one count of petty theft with a prior theft related offense. (Pen. Code, 666.) His appellate counsel has raised no issues on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also advised appellant in writing that a Wende brief was being filed and that appellant was entitled to file his own statement identifying any issues he wanted to call to the courts attention. In response, appellant has filed a supplemental brief. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Oliver L. and some juvenile companions spray painted graffiti in San Bruno and Millbrae. Oliver was placed on juvenile probation after he pled no contest to allegations that he was a person coming under the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 by virtue of his having committed four acts of vandalism under Penal Code section 594, subdivision (b)(1). On appeal, court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues, but has asked this court to independently review the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Court affirm the judgment.

Fatemeh Esteki appeals from judgments entered in favor of respondents City of Los Angeles (City) and its employees, police officers Edward Espinosa, Michael Babel and John Cudworth, and Ross Reghabi, an attorney for appellants daughter-in-law. Reghabi went to appellants home accompanied by police officers to serve a family court order. The order required appellants son to vacate the family home, which appellant had quitclaimed to her daughter in law. Appellant claimed Reghabi, assisted by respondent officers, demanded that appellant leave the home even though the court order did not mention her, as a result of which appellant fell ill. The trial court granted a summary judgment to the City and officers on appellants claim for violation of civil rights under 42 United States Code section 1983 ( 1983). After hearing the evidence against Reghabi, the court granted Reghabis motion for judgment on appellants causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process and violation of civil rights. Court conclude the trial court properly entered judgment in favor of the City and Reghabi but erred in granting summary judgment to the officers.

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of Saint Matthews Churches (SMC) following a bench trial. The trial court found Kachavos misappropriated a trade secret owned by SMC in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, 3426 et seq.) (UTSA). The trade secret in question is the national membership list of SMC containing sensitive and confidential personal information about SMC members, including member tithes, offerings, history of contacts and personal communications with SMC. In addition to finding Kachavos misappropriated a trade secret, the court also issued a permanent injunction requiring Kachavos to return the membership list to SMC. It further ordered Kachavos to pay SMC attorney fees of $7,500. Court affirm.