CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals an order granting respondent’s request for a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Court reversed because there was no evidence plaintiff and defendant were ever in any of the domestic relationships that are protected by the DVPA. Order Reversed.

Appellant appeals the custody and visitation orders contained in a judgment on reserved issues entered in this family law matter regarding the dissolution of his marriage to respondent. Court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of receiving stolen property, providing false information to a peace officer, unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle and forgery of a registration document for a motor vehicle. Defendant appeals from a judgment sentencing him to prison for an aggregate term of three years eight months. Appellant contends his convictions must be reversed because (1) the trial court erroneously admitted the preliminary hearing testimony of two accomplices without an adequate showing that the prosecution had exercised due diligence to secure their attendance at trial; (2) the court abused its discretion and violated his right to due process when it admitted evidence of appellant's prior criminal conduct; and (3) the court gave CALJIC No. 2.62, regarding a defendant's failure to explain the evidence against him, despite there being no basis for the instruction. Appellant alternatively argues that resentencing is required because the consecutive term imposed for the forgery count should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654 and because the court imposed an upper term and consecutive sentence based on facts not found true by a jury, in violation of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for attempted premeditated murder with firearm use findings. Sentenced to state prison for 25 years to life, Defendant claims there was trial error. The judgment is affirmed.

Mother appeals from a juvenile court order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition without a hearing. In that petition, mother sought a home of parent order for her daughter, or, alternatively, reinstatement of family reunification services with liberalized visits. According to mother, she established a prima facie case and was entitled to a hearing. Mother also appeals from the juvenile court’s subsequent order terminating her parental rights to minor pursuant to section 366.26. Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the sibling exception to terminating parental rights did not apply. Court found no error and affirmed.

Father appeals an order of the juvenile court adjudging his three minor children dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d), and ordering father to participate in family reunification services. On appeal, father contends the evidence was insufficient to support the allegation that father sexually abused his nine-year old daughter, or the juvenile court’s finding that minor’s male siblings were at risk of harm. Court rejected these claims and affirmed the order.

Mother, appeals the summary denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and the termination of her parental rights in accordance with section 366.26. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from judgment entered after a jury convicted her of selling cocaine base. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison. On appeal, defendant requested the court to independently review the record. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with transporting a controlled substance and two other offenses after methamphetamine was found on and under the seat of a patrol car in the spot where defendant had been sitting following a traffic stop. At trial, defendant’s nephew, who had been in the patrol car with him, testified that all of the drugs were his. Notwithstanding Martinez’s testimony, the jury found defendant guilty.
On appeal, defendant offers two arguments, neither of which has any merit.
The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer to his complaint for medical malpractice against defendant. The demurrer was sustained on the basis of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff, who has proceeded throughout the litigation in propria persona and acknowledges that he is “not strong on Points and Authorities, Statutes or Codes of Civil Procedure,” and contends the court erred in ruling that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Court reviewed the appellate record and concluded that the demurrer was properly sustained. Therefore, court must affirm the judgment of dismissal. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant appeals from a civil harassment protective order issued against him in favor of respondents. Appellant contends that the trial judge (1) erred in refusing his request to continue the trial, (2) incorrectly denied his “right to offer relevant evidence,” (3) wrongly refused Wilbur’s request to recall a witness, (4) and should have recused himself from conducting the hearing. Court held that these contentions lacked merit. Order Affirmed.

Defendant waived jury trial and the trial court found him guilty of first degree burglary, receiving stolen property, and attempted vehicle taking. The court also found true six prior convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law and two prior convictions for purposes of a five-year enhancement. Defendant was sentenced to 35 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for the burglary plus two five-year enhancements. Sentences on the remaining counts were stayed.
Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to due process in denying his motion to add a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity after rendition of the verdict. Court affirmed.

Defendant pled no contest to possessing methamphetamine and admitted he had served a prior prison term. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant probation pursuant to Proposition 36. Thereafter, defendant violated probation by failing to abstain from the use of narcotics, and the court revoked but reinstated probation. Defendant then violated probation again by using methamphetamine and by resisting arrest four days later. As a consequence, the court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to four years in state prison. Defendant appeals, contending that there is insufficient evidence he resisted arrest and that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Court disagreed and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appeals the denial of his request to be reinstated on Proposition 36 probation. Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding he had violated a non-drug-related condition of his probation. Court affirmed the judgment.