CA Unpub Decisions

The allegations of paragraph d-3, "Patricia [C.], the guardian and maternal grandmother of Veronica [V.], has failed to adequately protect Veronica from being sexually abused in that, after learning that Veronica [V.] and her other granddaughter were sexually abused she allowed the perpetrator to remain in the home," were not sustained. The identity of the "other granddaughter" is unclear and neither party raises any issue related to the allegations of paragraph d-3 on appeal.
At the dispositional hearing, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well being of each of the three children if they were returned to Patricia's home. The court also found there were no reasonable means to protect the children's physical health without removing them from Patricia's custody, and that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent the need for removal. As a result, Johnny was placed in the home of his noncustodial parent, who was given physical and legal custody of him; Patricia's guardianship was terminated. Corina and Veronica's placements were left to the department's discretion.
Patricia appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the court.
The jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court are reversed.

Michelle T. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf.and Inst. Code, S 366.26) to her daughter, A.T. Appellant joins in an argument made by A.T.'s father in his appeal, In re A.T. (case no. F050850). The father claimed the court erred at an earlier stage of the proceedings by not inquiring of him or ordering him to complete a form with regard to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. S 1901 et seq.).
In court's opinion affirming the termination order, we rejected the father's argument as untimely (In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 185), speculative without affirmatively showing error on the record (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564) by failing to provide a complete record, and misinterpreting our recent opinion in In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450. Because the mother in her appeal raised no independent claim of error, court conclude the court properly terminated her parental rights.

On July 26, 2006, following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true an allegation that appellant Christina L., a minor at the time of that hearing, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, SS 211; 212.5, subd. (c)). Following the subsequent disposition hearing on August 30, 2006, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed her on probation in the custody of her mother. As a condition of probation, the court directed appellant as follows: "If you have graduated from school or are eighteen years of age, you must seek and maintain at least 32 hour[s] a week of gainful employment." Court refer to this condition of probation as the employment condition.
On appeal, appellant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her adjudication of robbery; (2) the employment condition was invalid; and (3) if appellant's challenge to the employment condition is deemed waived by the failure to object to that condition, appellant was denied her constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. Court modify the employment condition and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Defendant Julio Cesar Moran Fabian challenges his convictions on seven counts involving the commission of lewd acts against two victims under the age of 14. Defendant was sentenced to 30 years to life for these crimes. Defendant raises a single argument on appeal whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that, after all the charged acts of molestation by defendant occurred, one of the victims (then a 10 year old girl) hugged and inappropriately brushed up against an 18 year old male. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Ronald H. Fraser's causes of action against defendant PC-TEL, INC. (PCT) and defendant and cross-complainant Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. (Wells Fargo) were summarily adjudicated in favor of PCT and Wells Fargo. The superior court denied Fraser's motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings on Wells Fargo's cross complaint, and a stipulated judgment for $275,000 was entered against Fraser on the cross complaint.
On appeal, Fraser claims that (1) triable issues of fact precluded summary adjudication of his causes of action, (2) his summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings motions should have been granted and (3) the superior court erred in refusing to (a) take judicial notice of certain documents, (b) strike information about his tax returns and (c) compel further responses by PCT to some of his special interrogatories. Court reject his contentions and affirm the judgments.

In a plea negotiated after denial of his Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss the information, defendant Thanh Thanh Lu pled no contest to an amended information charging one count of harboring, concealing or aiding Hoang Nguyen in the commission of felony cultivation of marijuana in violation of section 32. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred in denying the section 995 motion because there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy as alleged in the original information.
The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant appeals the judgment of conviction imposed following a jury trial on three counts of murder and other offenses. Defendant contends the joinder of the three murder counts in a single trial was an abuse of discretion which denied him due process and a fair trial. Defendant also contends the case must be remanded because the trial court applied incorrect standards and procedures in evaluating his Wheeler/Batson motions. Court affirm.

Appellant appeals from the judgment following his conviction by a jury of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health and Saf. Code, S 11351.5) and cocaine (Health and Saf. Code, S 11351). Appellant contends the trial court improperly denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence and made several erroneous evidentiary rulings during the trial. Finding no reversible error, court affirm.

Defendant admitted that he committed the offense of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, S 245, subd. (a)(2)), with infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, S 12022.7, subd. (a)), as alleged in an amended petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Following a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court committed defendant to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum term of seven years. In this appeal defendant complains that the DJJ commitment is not supported by evidence of benefit to him. Court conclude that the dispositional order was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion, and affirm the judgment.

Sergio Quintana and Fernando Quintana appeal from judgments entered following their convictions by jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code, SS 187, 189; counts 1 and 2), each with a special circumstance allegation that the offense was committed by lying in wait (Pen. Code, S 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), while kidnapping (Pen. Code, S 190.2, subd. (a)(17), and while inflicting torture (Pen. Code, S 190.2, subd. (a)(18)). The court sentenced each appellant to prison for life without the possibility of parole.
We accept respondent's concession that the trial court erroneously imposed a Penal Code section 1202.45 restitution fine as to each appellant, since that fine is inapplicable where, as here, the court sentenced each appellant to prison for life without the possibility of parole.

Appellants Michael and David Bedik, the successor trustees and co beneficiaries of a testamentary trust known as the Bedik Family Trust (the Trust) were held liable for an overpayment of proceeds from the sale of Trust property. The overpayment resulted from an erroneous payoff demand submitted to escrow by the deceased's lender. Section 2943 of the Civil Code (section 2943) sets out the procedures that are to be followed in this situation: the lender reconveys the deed of trust and proceeds against the obligor as an unsecured creditor. If the lender fails to file the reconveyance, the title insurer may prepare and record a release of obligation under Civil Code section 2941 (section 2941), subdivision (b)(3). Here, rather than follow the statutory procedures, the title insurer, respondent Stewart Title Guaranty Company, paid the lender and sought reimbursement by pursuing claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and money paid by mistake against appellants individually and in their capacities as successor trustees of the Trust. The court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment, holding appellants jointly and severally responsible for the entire amount of the overpayment under both contract and restitutionary theories.
Court conclude that the summary judgment must be reversed.

The trial court denied appellant's motion to enforce a judgment entered on a settlement agreement, finding that respondents had already complied with the judgment. Court affirm.

Appellant shot his ex-girlfriend, K.C., because she refused to go back to living with him and working as a prostitute. He was convicted of attempted premeditated murder and personal discharge of a firearm, causing great bodily injury. The sentence was life imprisonment, consecutive to 25 years to life in prison. On appeal, he contends: (1) The trial court denied him due process of law by refusing to instruct on voluntary intoxication; and (2) There was insufficient evidence that K.C.'s gunshot wounds constituted great bodily injury, for the purpose of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) (S 12022.53(d)).[1]
Court find no error, and affirm.

Appellant was convicted by jury of one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child (count 4). (Pen. Code, S 288.5.) The trial court denied probation and sentenced appellant to a midterm commitment of 12 years in state prison. Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting a videotape of the victim playing with anatomically correct dolls and in denying him probation. Court affirm.