CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant filed suit against respondents, which include several lenders, a foreclosure investment company, two foreclosure trustees, and the present owners of the property, claiming her son’s forgery warranted cancellation of their subsequent interests in the property and that the property be returned to her sole ownership.
Appellant now appeals from judgments of dismissal in favor of respondents based upon orders sustaining their individual demurrers without leave to amend to all of the causes of action stated against them in appellant’s second amended complaint (SAC). Court concluded the superior court properly sustained the demurrers, and court affirmed the judgment dismissing her lawsuit as to these respondents.

Appellant appeals from an order of the trial court denying a motion to compel arbitration and to stay this action. Court held appellant‘s employee handbook, of which a claimed provision for arbitration was a part, did not create a contract for arbitration between appellant and its employees, but was intended primarily to explain what appellant expected of its employees and what its employees might expect from appellant. Therefore, the trial court did not err in ruling Appellant failed to establish an enforceable arbitration agreement. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant is the mother of minor who was approximately 20 months old at the time of her detention. Mother appeals the order terminating parental rights asserting that notice was improper under the Indian Child Welfare Act. Mother also appeals the summary denial of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition.
Court affirmed. ICWA notice was proper. In addition, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying mother’s section 388 petition.

Appellant appeals from the juvenile court’s findings and order terminating parental rights over minor. Appellant contends the court deprived her of due process by not allowing her to call minor and the foster mother to testify regarding the parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights. Since these contentions lack merit, court affirmed the court’s findings and order.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling, acquitted him of burglary with intent to commit rape, and could not reach a verdict on a third count of assault with intent to commit rape. On retrial, a second jury convicted him of the latter offense.
Sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of five years four months, defendant appeals, challenging only the conviction on retrial of count three--assault with intent to commit rape. Defendant raises claims of instructional and evidentiary error, improper restriction on defense counsel’s closing argument, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Court agreed with defendant’s contention that the trial court erroneously failed to instruct on the lesser included offense of attempted rape, but reject defendant’s remaining arguments. Court gave the district attorney the option of either retrying the charge in count three, or accepting a conviction of the lesser crime, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.

Following a jury finding that defendant was a mentally disordered offender, his commitment to the Department of Mental Health was extended for an additional year.
Defendant appealed, filing a brief in conformity with People v. Wende, requesting that court review the record to determine whether there was any arguable error which could result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Court dismissed the appeal, because the issue is presently undecided we have also afforded defendant Wende review.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of respondent. The dispute arose out of a franchise agreement between the parties. Plaintiff filed suit against respondent and others for breach of contract, business torts, fraud and negligence. After respondent’s motion to compel arbitration, the matter was arbitrated through the American Arbitration Association. The trial court entered judgment confirming the arbitration award.
Plaintiff, who is in propria persona and has been declared a vexatious litigant, raises numerous arguments on appeal, attacking the order compelling arbitration, the judgment confirming the arbitration award, and certain post-judgment orders. Court found no merit to any of his arguments, and affirmed the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder, found true an allegation that defendant was vicariously armed during the offense, and sustained a lying-in-wait special circumstance. The trial court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole and a consecutive three-year term for the firearm enhancement. On appeal, defendant contends the lying-in-wait special circumstance does not apply to an aider and abettor. Court rejected the contention and affirmed.

A jury found defendant guilty of taking and driving a vehicle without the owner’s consent, and buying or receiving a motor vehicle that was stolen property with knowledge it was stolen. Defendant brought a motion for a new trial, arguing no evidence presented at trial showed he knew the car was stolen. The trial court granted the motion. The People appeal, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to accord proper deference to the jury’s verdicts. Court disagreed and affirmed the order granting a new trial.

After 23 years, the parties separated; Wife petitioned for dissolution of their marriage. In January 2004, the parties stipulated to a judgment incorporating their MSA. According to appellant, “[f]or unexplained reasons” there was no entry of judgment until January 2005.
Wife moved to increase spousal support, eliminate provisions in the MSA for a step-down in support, and to extend indefinitely the court’s power to provide support. Following an unreported contested hearing, the trial court increased spousal support and ruled that language in the judgment purportedly limiting its jurisdiction to extend the duration of spousal support beyond the specified termination date was ineffectual.
On appeal, Husband contends the court erred in its interpretation of the language of the judgment. Court affirmed.

Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon, and admitted a violation of probation in a second case, in exchange for three years of formal probation and 180 days confinement in county jail. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence forming the basis of the charges against him. Court affirmed the judgment.

After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, minor admitted that he possessed a firearm. Three related allegations were dismissed. Minor was continued as a ward of the court and ordered to serve 26 days in juvenile hall with credit for time served, followed by a commitment to the Sacramento County Boys Ranch for a maximum three years eight months.
On appeal, the minor contends his suppression motion should have been granted because (1) he was unlawfully detained, and (2) information obtained during the detention, which led to discovery of the firearm, is the fruit of a poisonous tree. Court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possession of cocaine in exchange for the upper term of three years, suspended on the condition that he complete drug court. Defendant, at the time of his plea, was serving a term for violation of parole on another matter and was unable to start drug court until he was released. Defendant agreed to plead to the possession offense and continue sentencing until a month or two before his scheduled release on the parole violation term. The prosecutor stated for the record that drug court was a “one-time deal,” and if defendant failed drug court he would serve three years in state prison for the possession offense. The prosecutor dismissed the remaining counts for insufficient evidence. The prosecutor dismissed the allegations in light of defendant’s plea.
Defendant appeals requesting the court independently review the record. No argurable error found. Judgment Affirmed.

A petition was filed against minor Suny Y. alleging that he made annoying telephone calls, a misdemeanor, and criminal threats, a felony, against Anthony Vang.
A subsequent petition filed alleging that the minor made criminal threats, a felony, and annoying telephone calls, a misdemeanor, against Cha Lee Vu.
At the settlement conference, the minor admitted criminal threats as a misdemeanor in exchange for a grant of probation with five days of work project and 30 days of home supervision. The other count was dismissed. The court adjudged the minor a ward of the court, committed the minor to the care and custody of his parents, and granted probation subject to certain terms and conditions including five days of work project.
The minor appeals. The judgment (order of probation) is affirmed.