CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant "minor" appeals from judgment of the juvenile court declaring her a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placing her on home probation after finding that she prevented a teacher from performing her duties by threatening to inflict unlawful injury in violation of Penal Code section 71. She contends that each of her communications to the teacher deserved First Amendment protection. She further contends there is insufficient evidencethat (1) she meant either of the communications as a threat, (2) she intended to affect the teacher's performance, or (3) she had the apparent ability to carry out any possible threat. Finally, she claims that because the prosecutor argued two separate incidents under one charge without electing one on which to rely, the court may have confused the evidence when it made itsfinding, thus denying her due process in defending herself. For reasons explained in this opinion, court reject each contention and affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of possessing adeadly weapon. (Pen. Code, S 12020, subd. (a)(1).) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found defendant had suffered a prior conviction for which he served a prisonterm. (Pen. Code, S 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for three years and appeals, claiming the trial court erroneously failed to hold a further hearing on possible juror misconduct and erroneously denied his motions for release of juror informationand for a new trial. Court reject his contentions and affirm, while directing the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment and minutes of the sentencing hearing to reflect the calculation of defendant's pretrial custody time and credits to which the parties here agree.

Appellant, mother, appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 order terminating parental rights to her daughter, (born in October 2000) (the child). On appeal, mother argues that: 1) the juvenile court erred in failing to provide her with proper notice of her writ rights; 2) she was not provided with reasonable reunification services; 3) the court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition; 4) the court erred in failing to remove the child from placement with the paternal grandparents; and 5) the beneficial parental relationship exception (S 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A))applied. Court affirm the order.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, S 11377, subd. (a)) and is serving a two-year sentence in state prison. Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized by a law enforcement officer who made a warrantless entry into his apartment while he was involved in a domestic dispute with his girlfriend.

Defendant, minor, successfully completed a program at a placement facility and then violated his probation after being released to the custody of his mother. The court ordered a short term placement for him in another structured facility. Minor contends that the juvenile court abused itsdiscretion in ordering the placement instead of continuing him in an after careprogram in the custody of a family friend. Court affirm.

Defendant pled nolocontendere to sellin/transporting cocainebase. (Health and Saf. Code, S 11352(a).) As part of his plea bargain, he waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced to the agreed to term of four years inprison. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.

A modification decision.

Defendant appeals from a sentence imposed following a conviction based upon a plea of no contest. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

A jury convicted appellant of possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, S 11377, subd. (a)) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health and Saf. Code, S 11364). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years' probation, with various terms and conditions,including that she pay $40 per month in probation supervision costs.
On appeal, appellant's sole contention is that the court erred in imposing the probation costs condition. Specifically, she argues that (1) the court made various procedural errors, including failing to conduct a hearing on the issue of appellant's ability to pay probation supervision costs; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that appellant had the ability to pay those costs; and (3) although a defendant who is granted probation may be ordered to pay the costs of probation supervisionif he or she is financially able to do so, payment of such costs cannot be made a condition of probation. Court modify the judgment to provide that the probation costs condition is deleted from the conditions of probation and affirm the order that appellant pay such costs.

Appellants, sued respondents (Great Oaks), (Ventana), and others for personal injuries and other injuries. Plaintiffs lived in a single family home adjacent to the Comstock Apartments (Apartments)in Mountain View. Great Oaks owned the Apartments and Ventana managed the apartment complex. Plaintiffs allege Great Oaks and Ventana negligently managedthe garbage areas of the Apartments and that their negligence caused a clowder of cats to gather and feed on the garbage. After feasting on what Plaintiffs'expert described as an "unlimited 24 hour a day smorgasbord, "the cats hopped the fences between the Apartments and Plaintiffs' backyard and entered Plaintiffs' yard. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Great Oaks and Ventana's negligence, Kaelin contracted cat scratch disease. They also claim the presence of the large number of cats was a nuisance.
The trial court granted Great Oaks and Ventan's motion for summary judgment of Plaintiffs' negligence, negligence per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and nuisance causes of action. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the court erred in finding no duty with regard to two of the causes of action and that the court erred in concluding there was no causation with regard to all of the causes of action. Court conclude that the court properly granted summary adjudication of all of the causes of action based on Kaelin's personal injury claims since Plaintiffs cannot prove that Kaelin's illness was caused by Great Oaks and Ventana's conduct. However, court conclude that the nuisance cause of action based on the alleged presence of large numbers of cats on Plaintiffs' property (but not Kaelin's personal injuries) survived summary adjudication.

Appellant sued respondent for personal injuries after Appellant fell off of respondent's roof while doing electrical work on respondent's home. Respondent's homeowners insurer agreed to provide workers' compensation benefits to appellant. Respondent filed a motionfor summary judgment in the civil action, arguing that the civil action was barred because workers' compensation was Appellant's exclusive remedy. Thecourt found that appellant was respondent's employee within the meaning of Labor Code Section 3351, subdivision (d)and granted summary judgment.
Court find no error and affirm the summary judgment.

The issue in this case is whether, after the defendant pleaded no contest to certain counts under a plea bargain, the trial court abused its discretion in setting the amount of the restitution fund fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivisions (b), (c) and (d). This section provides, among other things, that in setting the amount of thefine between $200 and $10,000, the trialcourt shall consider any relevant factors, including a defendant's inability to pay. (S 1202.4, subd. (d).) Defendant contends that the courterred here by refusing to consider his inability to pay in fixing the fine at$4,200. Based on this record, Court conclude that defendant has failed to affirmatively show that the court erred. Court accordingly affirm the judgment.

On May 30, 2003, pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.5, and in accordance with the plea bargain, defendant pledguilty to count 1 (Pen. Code, S 273.5, subd. (a)) and count 4 (Pen. Code, S 273a, subd. (b)) of the felony complaint filed by the Riverside County DistrictAttorney. The negotiated dispositionallowed for the remaining charges and allegations to be dismissed and strickenpursuant to Penal Code section 1385.
Court have concluded independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. The judgment isaffirmed.

On January 11, 2006, in case No. FSB054032, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed aone-count felony complaint which charged defendant with a violation of Penal Code section 114, a felony use of false documents.
On March 13, 2006,pursuant to Penal Code sections 859a and 1192.5, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty as charged in count one (Pen. Code, S 114).
Thereafter, on June 23, 2006, defendant was placed on a formal grant of probation for three (3) years onthe condition he spend 30 days in the local jail.
Court have concluded independent review of the recordand find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.