CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant, mother, lost custody of her two-year old son, due to her substance abuse and emotional problems.
Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights. She contends that the juvenile court erred when it found that mother had failed to establish the parental relationship exception in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision, (c)(1)(A). She also contends, for the first time on appeal, that because the juvenile court had a “preconceived” preference for adoption as a permanent plan for child, she was prevented from asserting the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(D), exception and, therefore, denied procedural due process. Court Affirmed.

S.A. seeks review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under section 366.26. S.A. contends the court's finding that she was provided reasonable reunification services is not supported by substantial evidence, and therefore the court erred when it terminated reunification efforts and referred the case for a section 366.26 hearing. The court concluded that there is no evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that S.A. was provided reasonable reunification services, and court granted the petition.

Defendant has appealed a postjudgment order, in which the trial court denied his motion for relief from the registration requirements of Penal Code section 290. Court affirmed the order. The trial court found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity on one count of misdemeanor sexual battery and two counts of felony battery against a custodial officer. Following a referral to CONREP for a placement recommendation, the court committed defendant to confinement in a state hospital for a period of four years eight months. Over 10 years after the judgment, defendant filed a motion informing the trial court that, upon his initial release from the state hospital, he had been “informed that he was required to register” as a sex offender under section 290. Defendant's motion sought relief from that requirement. Defendant's appeal is from the order denying that motion. Order Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a trial court order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications in order to render him competent to stand trial. Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court’s order is not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, should be reversed. Court concluded the record does not contain substantial evidence that it is “substantially likely” the involuntary administration of medication to McDuffie will render him competent to stand trial. Therefore, court reversed.

Defendant appeals from the portion of his sentence that imposes a $1,600 fine under Penal Code section 1202.45. Appellant contends that the fine must be reduced to the statutory minimum amount of $200 because it “constitutes punishment in excess of that contemplated by the plea bargain.” Court disagreed and affirmed.

Minor’s father appeals the termination of his parental rights. Father argues that there was no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that (1) Minor was adoptable and (2) her adoption is more beneficial for her than continued relationships with Father and an adult half brother. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals from a dispositional order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him in the custody of the probation department for placement in a court-approved facility. Appellant's counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record. There are no meritorious issues to be argued.

Appellant appeals from a jurisdictional order sustaining a robbery allegation made against him in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, and from the juvenile court’s dispositional order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him on probation. Appellant’s counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record. There are no legal issues that require further briefing. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellants appeal from the judgment denying their petition for writ of administrative mandamus, by which they sought to compel the City of Pasadena (City) to vacate the revocation of a conditional use permit. In addition to the petition, appellants’ pleading included a complaint for damages and declaratory relief, naming the individual members of the Pasadena Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), and alleging that the revocation of the conditional use permit amounted to a violation of civil rights pursuant to Title 42 United States Code section 1983. The judgment is affirmed.

Father appeals an order modifying a custody arrangement by permitting Mother to move to Los Osos from Los Angeles with their minor daughter. Court found no abuse of discretion, and affirmed.

A modification decision.

Appellant through his guardian ad litem appeals from a judgment after the court determined in a bench trial that he should take nothing in this personal injury case against respondent Palmdale School District. Appellant contends the court erred in using his negligence to bar his recovery from the district. Court reversed for further proceedings.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered after conviction by jury of second degree murder in which he personally discharged a firearm causing death and assault with a firearm in which he personally used a firearm. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erroneously denied discovery and the prosecutor committed misconduct in argument. Court rejected these contentions and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered after conviction by jury of second degree murder in which he personally discharged a firearm causing death and assault with a firearm in which he personally used a firearm. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erroneously denied discovery and the prosecutor committed misconduct in argument. Court rejected these contentions and affirmed the judgment.