CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals from an order confirming registration of a German judgment for child and spousal support. Appellant argues that there is no reciprocity between Germany and the United States regarding child and spousal support orders, that principles of comity do not apply, and that the German judgment is invalid because it was fraudulently obtained and the German court lacked jurisdiction over him. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to set aside a judgment in favor of respondent. Appellant contends the underlying judgment in a family law case was based on respondent’s perjury and fraud. Additionally, she maintains the lower court did not have jurisdiction over her separate property. Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment and affirmed its ruling.

Defendants County of Sonoma and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved the Sonoma Country Inn project and certified the project’s environmental impact report (EIR). Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of mandamus, which challenged the project approval decision.
Plaintiff contends that there was a feasible alternative to the project, Alternative 5, and that the EIR is deficient regarding traffic, water supply, and off-site alternatives. Court disagreed and affirmed.

Defendant appeals his conviction by guilty plea of first degree residential burglary and two counts of first degree robbery within a dwelling. Defendant asked for the court to independently review the records. Court found no arguable issues. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. Defendant contends the aggravated term imposed by the trial court on count two violates the Sixth Amendment and due process. Court affirm by memorandum opinion.

Mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights over her infant son. Mother advances two contentions. She first contends that the juvenile court erred in determining she had been given notice of the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing as required by law. Court concluded that this contention is not only procedurally barred, it is also without merit. Mother’s second contention is that there is not substantial evidence to support the finding, made by the court at the termination hearing, that minor is likely to be adopted. Court concluded that this contention is also without merit. In light of these conclusions, court affirmed.

This is an appeal from an order of dismissal following a bifurcated trial on statute of limitations grounds. The owner of a taxicab company brought this action against a city for refusal to grant appellant’s franchise to operate taxicabs in the city. After the first phase of trial on the respondent’s statute of limitations defense, the court announced a tentative ruling in favor of the appellant. At the beginning of the second phase, which was on the merits, the court announced its final decision on the statute of limitations issue, holding that appellant’s claim was barred. Appellant claims this was error and seeks reversal. Court found no error and affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the trial court’s sustaining of defendants’ California State University Northridge and Matadors Community Credit Union demurrers to her complaint for negligence, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellant contends the trial court erred in concluding her claims were barred by governmental immunity and the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). Court affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty in March 2001 to one count of stalking. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted appellant 36 months' probation. Defendant appeals from the August 2005 order finding him in violation of his probation, revoking probation and sentencing him to a two-year term in state prison with custody and good time credit for 501 days. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion for substitution of appointed counsel, when it failed to read a letter he submitted or to rule on the motion for reconsideration that was included in the letter, when it considered hearsay testimony from his probation officer, and when it revoked his probation for failure to pay fines without making a finding concerning his ability to pay. Court affirmed.

Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count 1), battery with serious bodily injury (count 2), and mayhem (count 3). The jury also found that appellant personally committed great bodily injury, as to count 1, and personally used a knife, as to counts 2 and 3. Appellant was sentenced to six years and eight months in prison. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to exclude testimony by a prosecution rebuttal witness as a discovery sanction. Court agreed with him, and reversed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction by a jury of possession for sale of methamphetamine and possession for sale of cocaine. The trial court denied probation and sentenced him to prison for three years, eight months. Appellant meritoriously contends that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the trial court applied an erroneous standard of probation eligibility. Court reversed and remanded the matter for resentencing.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following resentencing and denial of his motion for a new trial, which followed a remand from this court for these purposes. On appeal, defendant asked the court to independently review the record. Court found no arguable issues. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellants appeal from the order of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights as to their son, and selecting adoption as a permanent plan. They also claim the court abused its discretion in denying their petitions for modification based on changed circumstances. Court found no error and affirmed the court’s orders

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to second degree robbery. Defendant appeals asking the court to independently review the record. Court found no arguable issues. Judgment Affirmed.