CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants acting in propria persona, appeal from a judgment in favor of the City of Encinitas (City) following the trial court's entry of default against them in City's civil suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. City's abatement action concerned a structure located on defendants' property that City alleged was an unlawful garage conversion without a building permit. Defendants contend that during the proceedings of the case they were denied due process of law; City's inspection warrant was improperly issued and executed; City's summons and complaint was uncertain and defective; they were denied a public abatement hearing; and they were improperly subjected to a permanent injunction and a lien for excessive costs and fees. Because defendants have not shown any basis to reverse the default judgment, court affirmed.

Defendants appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial in which the jury awarded plaintiff damages for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff appeals from a postjudgment order denying its request for attorney fees and prejudgment interest on a portion of the damages awarded to plaintiff in the judgment.
Defendant contends on appeal that the jury's verdict is inconsistent in that the jury found that a valid contract existed, but also awarded damages for negligent misrepresentation pertaining to the subject matter of the contract. Defendant further contends that there was insufficient evidence of negligent misrepresentation to support the jury's damage award on that ground.
In a cross-appeal, plaintiff challenges the trial court's determination that it is not entitled to statutory attorney fees and interest under Civil Code[ section 3260. According to plaintiff, defendant failed to pay the full amount due under a June 11 agreement within 45 days after it accepted the floor, thus failing to meet the requirements of section 3260 and rendering defendant liable for attorney fees and interest. Affirmed.

Defendants appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial in which the jury awarded plaintiff damages for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff appeals from a postjudgment order denying its request for attorney fees and prejudgment interest on a portion of the damages awarded to plaintiff in the judgment.
Defendant contends on appeal that the jury's verdict is inconsistent in that the jury found that a valid contract existed, but also awarded damages for negligent misrepresentation pertaining to the subject matter of the contract. Defendant further contends that there was insufficient evidence of negligent misrepresentation to support the jury's damage award on that ground.
In a cross-appeal, plaintiff challenges the trial court's determination that it is not entitled to statutory attorney fees and interest under Civil Code[ section 3260. According to plaintiff, defendant failed to pay the full amount due under a June 11 agreement within 45 days after it accepted the floor, thus failing to meet the requirements of section 3260 and rendering defendant liable for attorney fees and interest. Affirmed.

Appellants appeal from an order appointing a conservator of the estate of Earl Katz. Appellants contends good cause did not exist for the appointment under Probate Code section 1802 because (1) a guardian ad litem could have been appointed to manage Katz's estate as an alternative to a conservator, and (2) Katz demonstrated bad faith in his petition. Court reversed.

Defendant appeals a judgment following his jury conviction on one count of possession for sale of opium, a controlled substance and one count of possession of opium. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred by: (1) not giving a unanimity instruction; (2) denying his Penal Code section 1118.1 motion to dismiss the possession for sale count for insufficiency of the evidence; (3) denying his motion to dismiss the possession count for vindictive prosecution; (4) admitting a belatedly disclosed letter into evidence; (5) denying his in limine motion to exclude evidence of his 1963 residential burglary conviction; and (6) committing cumulative error. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals requesting that the court independently review the record. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant filed, in propria persona, a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the trial court's pretrial orders prohibiting him from making telephone calls from jail. Appellant apparently contends those orders violated his constitutional rights to self-representation, access to the courts, and due process because he was unable to effectively communicate with his private investigator and otherwise prepare for trial.
Because appellant does not argue, or show, that any of the very limited exceptions to the "Dixon rule" apply in his case, court concluded that he cannot, in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, raise the contention that the trial court erred by issuing its pretrial orders prohibiting him from making telephone calls from jail. The petition is denied.

Appellant appealed a judgment of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights to their minor daughter under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's findings: (1) minor was likely to be adopted; and (2) the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply to preclude terminating parental rights. Court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant seeks review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that there was no substantial probability her children would be returned to parental custody by the 18-month review date, and therefore the court erred when it terminated reunification efforts and referred the case for a section 366.26 hearing. The San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) agrees with Appellant's position and urges us to reverse. Court concluded substantial evidence supports the court's findings and orders, and denied the petition.

At a jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that the minor, came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), failure to protect. It then removed the minor from the physical custody of the parents under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). Father appeals, contending that the juvenile court erred when it made removal findings as to him under that subdivision. Court disagreed and affirmed.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of failing to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290, subdivision (g). Defendant contends that one conviction must be stricken because a failure to register annually on his birthday is continuing in nature and therefore only one offense was committed. Defendant also challenges the imposition of separate punishment. Court affirmed the judgment.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, appellant pled guilty to carrying a loaded and concealed firearm. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years’ probation, one of the conditions of which was that he serve one year in county jail.
On appeal, appellant’s sole contention is that the court erred in denying appellant’s suppression motion. Court affirmed.

Appellant, pled no contest to possession of a concealed dirk or dagger and admitted that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. On appeal, defendant requested the court to independently review the record. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant pled no contest to felony failure to register as a sex offender and admitted a “strike” allegation. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. Appellant did not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. The judgment is affirmed.