CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals from a judgment entered after a retrial in which the jury found him guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (c). The trial court sentenced appellant to the midterm of two years in state prison. Appellant contends that admission of propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1108,deprived him of his right to a fair trial, due process, and equal protection. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals an order denying his request for attorney fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16) following the dismissal by plaintiffs and respondents Felix Dacanay (Dacanay) and Golden Budha Corporation (Golden Budha) of their action against him.
The essential issue presented is whether the cause of action by Dacanay and Golden Budha against Beckmann for breach of fiduciary duty arose from any acts by Beckmann in furtherance of his right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitutions. ( 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)
Court conclude, as did the trial court, that the cause of action against Beckmann for breach of fiduciary duty was not based on, and did not arise from, protected activity as defined by the statute. Therefore, Beckmann would not have prevailed on his anti-SLAPP motion had the action not been voluntarily dismissed. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Beckmanns motion for attorney fees and costs. The order is affirmed.

Appellant (mother) appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over her daughters, Isabel A. (born in Mar. 2004) and Kayleen A. (born in Dec. 2005), and removing them from her custody. Mother contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings that illicit drugs, live ammunition, and firecrackers found in the parents home endangered the children, created a detrimental home environment, and placed the children at risk of harm.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings, as well as the courts order removing the children from mothers custody and requiring mother to undergo drug testing and participate in individual counseling and a parenting program. Court therefore affirm the orders.

Y. G., mother of ten year old J. and nine year old G., appeals from the order of the juvenile court that terminated her parental rights. Court affirm the order.

Appellant purports to appeal from the order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) as to his daughter, Sophia P. (born August 2004). However, he seeks to reverse the juvenile courts orders in this matter dating back to [the] jurisdiction and disposition orders. Appellant (a drug addict with no known address at the time of the childs birth) contends that DCFS made inadequate attempts at notice and due diligence to locate him, and that his trial attorneys assistance was ineffective when, prior to the setting of the section 366.26 hearing, counsel failed to seek to vacate previous orders for lack of notice. Appellant raises no contention directly challenging matters occurring at the section 366.26 hearing terminating parental rights. Accordingly, since the appeal raises issues beyond the permissible scope of appellate review, Court have no authority to review those matters. The appeal must be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant pled no contest in Merced County to receiving stolen property (a car) and reckless driving. In a related action, he was charged in Sacramento County with carjacking and second degree robbery of a cell phone. The Sacramento County court granted his motion to dismiss the carjacking count but denied the motion as to the charge of robbery, for which defendant was then tried and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to the upper term of five years in state prison for the robbery and was ordered to pay various fines and fees.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the rejection of his motion to dismiss the robbery charge denied him due process of law and exposed him to double jeopardy, and (2) imposition of the upper term violated his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors used to enhance his sentence. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellants challenge the trial courts removal of them as trustees of a trust, the courts failure to issue a statement of decision on that ruling, and the courts resolution of a trust dispute. Court affirm the trial court in its entirety.

On October 29, 2004, defendant Quincy Demar Jones broke all 10 windows in the victims Nissan Pathfinder. The victims repair bill amounted to almost $6,000. Defendant pled no contest to felony vandalism and admitted a strike prior (second degree robbery) in exchange for dismissal of other counts and a stipulated state prison sentence of four years (midterm of two years, doubled). The court sentenced defendant to state prison accordingly. The judgment is modified to provide for a $200 parole fine and a $20 court security fee. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Cheryl Z., mother of the minor, appeals from orders denying her petition for modification and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 388, 395; further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Appellant contends the court erred in denying her petition for modification and in failing to find an exception to the preference for adoption as a permanent plan. Appellant also argues notice pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) was incomplete. Agreeing only with the latter contention, Court reverse the juvenile courts orders and remand for compliance with the ICWA.

Janet Bradus appeals from an order denying her petition to expunge a 1999 drug conviction following termination of her probation. (Pen. Code, 1203.4.) She contends relief under section 1203.4 must be granted because she fulfilled the conditions of her probation as required by law and the trial court essentially erred in denying her petition based on outstanding attorney fees and costs of probation that are not conditions of probation or requirements for section 1203.4 relief. Court agree and reverse the trial court's order.

In their marriage dissolution proceeding, Shirley Rogozienski (Shirley), represented by defendant and respondent S. Michael Love, and plaintiff and appellant Frank E. Rogzienski (Frank) stipulated to the appointment of defendant and respondent James D. Allen as temporary judge. After judgment was rendered, Frank sought Allen's disqualification, alleging that during the proceeding Allen accepted but did not disclose the gift of a time-share interest in property from Love. Allen was found disqualified during that part of the proceeding following his acceptance of the gift and Frank was granted a new dissolution proceeding before a different judge. In the present case, Frank sued Allen and Love, alleging various tort causes of action as to both and a breach of contract cause of action as to Allen, all arising from the gift and based on claimed damages resulting from the isqualification and need for new proceedings. The trial court sustained without leave to amend Allen's demurrer on the basis of judicial immunity and Love's demurrer on the basis the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute any alleged cause of action. Frank appeals. The judgment is reversed insofar as it sustained Love's demurrer to the second cause of action. It is reversed as to the seventh cause insofar as it sustained Love's demurrer with regard to the civil rights action alleged pursuant to 42 United States Code section 1983. It is sustained as to eleventh and twelfth causes of action but reversed as to the order foreclosing Frank from amending those causes of action. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. Each party to bear its own costs on appeal.

This is an appeal from an order granting a defense motion to vacate an arbitration award and denying a plaintiff's cross petition to confirm that award. (Code Civ. Proc., 1286 et seq.; all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.) In July 2002, plaintiff and appellant Turnermedia, LLC (plaintiff), brought a breach of contract action against defendants and respondents Craig McCarthy and Lisa McCarthy, both individually and doing business as Infinity Bail Network, LLC (defendants). A cross-complaint was filed and counsel entered into a stipulation to submit the matter to binding arbitration, and the case was taken off the civil trial calendar in July 2003. ( 1281.2.) Unsuccessful settlement negotiations were conducted by counsel through April 2004. When no settlement resulted, the selected arbitrator set a hearing for November 2004. Defendants did not attend individually or through their counsel, as at some point counsel had stopped representing them. The arbitrator issued a letter arbitration award in December 2004 (the first award).
The judgment granting the motion to vacate the arbitration award and denying appellant's petition to confirm the arbitration award is reversed, and the trial court is directed to enter a different order granting the petition to confirm the second award, in accordance with the views set forth in this opinion. Appellant recover its costs on appeal.

S.P. (S.) appeals a court order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for modification seeking to receive further reunification services with her minor daughters, J.P (J.) and L.P. (L.) (the minors). Court affirm the order.

In superior court case No. SCD187472, Artie T. Ross entered a negotiated guilty plea to attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187) and waived his Blakely rights. (Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296.) On April 25, 2005, the court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated nine year upper term, suspended execution of sentence and placed him on five years' probation including a condition he remain law abiding. On June 26, 2006, after holding an evidentiary hearing the court formally revoked probation and lifted the suspension on the nine year prison term.
In case No. SCD194043, on July 18, 2006, Ross entered a negotiated guilty plea to conspiracy to commit theft. (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(4).) The court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated three year upper term concurrent with the sentence in case No. SCD187472. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) The judgment is affirmed.