CA Unpub Decisions

In case No. SWF13110, defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. Although defendant was granted diversion under Penal Code section 1000, it was terminated when he failed to appear at a scheduled hearing to document his enrollment in a diversion program and he reoffended. Defendant was granted probation and his request for a certificate of probable cause was granted by the trial court. In case No. SWF15002, defendant pled guilty to possessing precursors with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Defendant was granted probation, which was the agreed-to disposition. Defendant appealed requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Court concluded independent review of the record and found no arguable issues.

Following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence, appellant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine and admitted an allegation she had suffered a “strike.” The court imposed a prison term of 32 months. On appeal, appellant’s sole contention is that the court erred in denying her suppression motion. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals from a June 2006 order terminating her parental rights to her two daughters. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter, advising that no brief would be forthcoming. Court extended time twice for appellant to personally file a letter brief. Appellant has now filed such a letter brief with this court. In it, appellant disputes for the first time evidence in the record. Appellant also complains her trial attorney should have asked the court to grant long-term foster care, instead of termination of parental rights, based on the progress she has allegedly made. The appeal is dismissed.

Plaintiff sued the seller and the real estate agents of a house for fraud alleging they had failed to adequately disclose the condition of the house. At the beginning of trial, the court ruled that because Civil Code section 3343 was the exclusive measure of damages for fraud in the purchase of real estate, Plaintiff could not introduce evidence of damages not relating to the difference between the value of the property at the time of purchase and what plaintiff paid for the property. In view of that limitation, Plaintiff conceded she had no damages and made no opening statement. The court granted nonsuit for the defendants. On appeal, plaintiff contends she was improperly precluded from introducing evidence of her damages. Court affirmed the judgment.

On appeal, defendant requested the court independently review the record. Court examined the record and found no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiff's malicious prosecution suit against defendant was dismissed after the trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Plaintiff appeals. Court affirmed, concluding plaintiff failed to oppose the motion with sufficient evidence showing defendant instituted the underlying action without probable cause and with malice.

After a trial arising out of a bank robbery, a jury convicted defendant of conspiring to commit a robbery, two counts of unlawfully transporting a PWA AR-15 assault weapon, unlawfully taking or driving two vehicles, falsely and maliciously reporting bombs at three schools, assaulting two men with an assault weapon, kidnapping four people for robbery, and robbing five people. The assault, kidnapping, and robbery counts all involved personal use of an assault weapon. The jury acquitted defendant of kidnapping a fifth person for robbery, but convicted him of the lesser offense of felony false imprisonment.
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of count 2, specifically, there is no corroboration of his confession to transporting the AR-15 assault weapon that he used in the robbery from southern California to Santa Cruz. Court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals a judgment following his guilty plea. On appeal, defendant asserts he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during a critical stage in the proceedings, because the trial court erred in failing to appoint new counsel to investigate the validity of a motion to withdraw the plea and/or present such a motion. In addition, defendant argues his counsel had an irreconcilable conflict of interest, and that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay a court security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8. Court found the imposition of the security fee was improper, and modified the judgment accordingly.

Defendant appeals a judgment following his plea of no contest to two counts of aggravated assault on a child. In this appeal, defendant asserts the trial court erred by not appointing new or separate counsel to argue the motion to withdraw his plea. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of one count of false imprisonment by violence, one count of simple assault, and two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery. The trial court sentenced defendant to the aggravated term of three years in prison for the felony and 540 days in jail for the three misdemeanors. Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for felony false imprisonment by violence, that the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the law pertaining to the elements of the crime of false imprisonment by violence, and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the prosecutor’s misstatement. Defendant also argues that he cannot be convicted of both assault and sexual battery because assault is necessarily included in the offense of battery. The Attorney General concedes the final argument. Court concluded that the evidence is insufficient to support the felony false imprisonment conviction and accept the Attorney General’s concession with respect to the assault conviction. Court reversed and remanded for resentencing.

The instant appeals are the next in a growing number of appeals brought by appellant in the course of his dissolution action. In this appeal, appellant challenges multiple orders made by the trial court in 2005 regarding ongoing childcare and support issues. Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in a number of ways. The respondent did not file a response brief. Finding that appellant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion, court affirmed the order.

Mother of minor, files this petition for extraordinary writ challenging the findings and orders of the juvenile court in setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in terminating her reunification services at the contested 12-month review hearing, because she made substantive progress on her service plan, and she did not receive reasonable services. The petition was denied.

Former spouses Father and Mother appeal from a judgment that denied Mother’s motion for payment of child support arrearages and denied Father damages for Mother’s incorrectly filed lien.
Mother contends the court erroneously concluded that all her claims for arrearages were released as part of the “Full Release” of a lien executed by the collection agency to which she had given power of attorney.
Father contends the court erroneously concluded that the litigation privilege precluded his seeking damages for the wrongfully filed lien and that there was insufficient evidence of damages therefrom. Father also contends the court erred in denying him attorney fees as the prevailing party. The judgment denying Mother child support arrearages is reversed and remanded with directions to calculate, insofar as possible, the outstanding amount and award them to Mother. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal to Mother.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her first amended and operative complaint against defendants, for fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation after defendant’s demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Appellant contends the trial court erroneously sustained the demurrer and denied her leave to amend. Court agreed and reversed.