CA Unpub Decisions

In this appeal, (appellant) challenges the trial courts order that denied her motion to extend the statutory time in which to have the forfeiture of a bail bond vacated. Whether to grant such a motion is a matter within the trial courts discretion, and on the basis of the appellate record, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellants motion. Therefore, the summary judgment on the forfeiture be affirmed.

Tye S. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a true finding that on September 14, 2005, she made a criminal threat in violation of Penal Code section 422, a felony. She was placed on probation in the home of her parents, and the maximum period of confinement was determined to be three years. She contends the evidence was insufficient to establish she violated Penal Code section 422, prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal, and the minute order should be corrected to delete any reference to a maximum term of confinement. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court strike the maximum period of confinement and in all other respects affirm the order of wardship.

When they separated in 1964, Murray Zimmerman agreed to pay the extraordinary medical expenses of his former wife Jeanne for the rest of her unmarried life. For 40 years, Murray and Jeanne operated under that agreement without incident. In 2004, however, a dispute arose between them concerning Murrays payment of Jeannes medical expenses. Jeanne required expensive back surgery for which she could not afford to pay. She asked the trial court to interpret the parties property settlement agreement, and determine the meaning of extraordinary medical expenses under the agreement. The trial court concluded that extraordinary medical expenses were any expenses not covered by Medicare, inclusive of prescription medications, and exclusive of cosmetic or elective surgeries. On appeal, Murray insists the court did not merely interpret the agreement, but rather rewrote it. Court affirm.

Mother Maria J. appeals from the dependency court order terminating her parental rights in her daughter Abigail J., contending that a conflict of interest existed between Abigail and her two other sisters over sibling visitation, requiring appointment of separate counsel for their divergent interests. Court affirm.

Appellant Javier C., a parent of. A. C. and R. C., appeals from the order terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Javier contends the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the exception to adoption found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(D) for situations in which a relative caregiver, although unwilling to adopt, is willing to provide a permanent home for the child. The mother of the two children (Claudia R.) is not a party to this appeal. Court affirm.

Sandra W. and Samuel W., parents of dependent children Lamar W. (born in 1989), Christina W. (born in 1990), Claudette W. (born in 1992), and Wendy W. (born in 1995), petition for extraordinary writ review of orders setting a permanency planning hearing and terminating reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.22, 366.26; California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Court deny the writ.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained a charge of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 years of age against Robert S., a minor. He was declared a ward of the court and ordered into suitable placement.
On appeal, the minor contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the juvenile courts finding the minor knew the wrongfulness of his act; (2) the court abused its discretion when it found the victim competent to testify; (3) he was denied his right to confront the witnesses against him when the court, over his objection, admitted a multi-disciplinary interview center (MDIC) interview videotape and transcript of the interview; (4) imposition of an unlimited search and seizure condition was unconstitutional; and (5) if contention No. 4 is forfeited by counsels failure to object to the search and seizure condition, he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Although an order denying a petition to vacate an arbitration award is not appealable, we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. Petitioners sole claim is that an arbitrators failure to personally make written disclosure required by the California Arbitration Act (Code Civ. Proc., 1280 et seq.) and the Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration (the California Standards) violates section 1281.9 and requires vacation of the arbitration award pursuant to section 1286.2. An arbitration service made complete disclosure on behalf of the neutral arbitrator, and there was no claim or evidence that this disclosure misrepresented or omitted material matters which should have been disclosed. Court hold that this disclosure satisfied disclosure requirements, affirm the order denying the petition to vacate the arbitration award, and deny the petition for writ of mandate.

Plaintiff appealed from judgments of dismissal entered in favor of defendants. Respondents obtained a dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction following the granting of their motion to quash service of summons. City National Bank's dismissal followed the sustaining of its demurrer without leave to amend. In accordance with this request, court dismiss the appeal.

Appellant Robert Matthew Church (Church) appeals from his conviction of the murder of Zachary Stone (Zachary). He claims, inter alia, that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, that the court erred in instructing the jury on lying in wait as a basis for first degree murder, and that insufficient evidence supported the jurys finding of the lying in wait special circumstance. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from a conviction of first degree murder. He contends there was insufficient evidence of premeditation; the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury to view evidence of his preoffense statements with caution; defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request such a cautionary instruction; the trial court violated his constitutional right to cross examination by refusing to allow evidence of a prosecution witnesss past lies to the police; and the cumulative effect of the errors at trial requires reversal of his conviction. Court agree that the trial courts error regarding the preoffense statements requires reversal of appellants conviction. As Court explain, the People shall have the option of accepting a modification of the judgment to reflect a conviction of second degree murder.

Defendant appeals from a judgment following his no contest plea to possessing methamphetamine. He contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Court agree and reverse the judgment.

Appellant Joseph L. contends his conviction for battery on school property (Pen. Code, 243.2, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor, should be reversed because he was acting in self defense. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals from the trial courts denial of his motion to vacate judgment and allow withdrawal of a no contest plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5 (hereafter section 1016.5). He argues the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Court affirm.