CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Appellant appeals from the order of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrers filed by the respondent to appellant’s first amended complaint for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, mandate and restitution. Court affirmed.

Appellant appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her children, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellant contends (1) insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that the children were adoptable; (2) the children’s counsel was an ineffective advocate for their well-being; (3) the juvenile court abused its discretion by granting the legal guardian complete discretion to determine whether court-ordered visits took place; and (4) the court’s delegation of judicial authority over visits to the legal guardian violated appellant’s right to due process and corrupted the findings and orders entered at the section 366.26 hearing. Appellantfailed to substantiate or waived these contentions. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court revoked his probation and imposed a previously suspended prison term. Defendant contends that the order revoking his probation should be reversed, in that the People failed to prove that he sold a controlled substance to an undercover officer. Court affirmed.

A minor appeals from an order which ordered him to remain a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placed him in the camp-community placement program. Appellant contends that he is entitled to an additional day of credit against the maximum time he may be held in physical confinement. Court agreed and modified the order accordingly.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted in count 1 of driving under the influence of alcohol and in count 2 of driving while having a 0.08 percent or higher blood alcohol and his no contest plea in count 3 of driving when the privilege has been suspended for a prior conviction of driving under the influence of, a misdemeanor. Appellant was sentenced in count 1 to prison for the upper term of three years. In count 3, appellant was sentenced to an additional year consecutive to count 1, to be served in any penal institution. Imposition of sentence in count 2 was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654 and the special enhancements were dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. Appellant contends the imposition of an upper term sentence violated Blakely v. Washington and his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury trial and due process. Court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant appeals from his conviction after jury trial of forcible rape (count 1) (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2))[1] and first degree burglary (counts 2 and 5) (§ 459). The jury also found several special allegations concerning the rape to be true (using a dangerous and deadly weapon, tying and binding the victim, and committing the rape during the commission of a burglary).
The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of 30 years 4 months to life in state prison, including three consecutive terms: (1) 25 years to life for the count 1 forcible rape, (2) four years (the middle term) for the count 2 burglary, and (3) 16 months (one-third the middle term) for the count 5 burglary. Appellant argues that remand for resentencing is required because Blakely v. Washington invalidates the trial court's imposition of consecutive terms based on facts that were not determined to be true by a jury. The court finds no merit in this contention. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of possession of cocaine base and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and served eight prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Councel requested the court do an independent review. No arguable issues were found. Judgment affirmed.

Defendant fired plaintiff while plaintiff was on leave for the birth of her child. Plaintiff filed a multi-count complaint alleging wrongful termination, gender and pregnancy discrimination, and violation of related federal and state statutes. After a lengthy trial but brief deliberations, the jury awarded plaintiff compensatory damages of $963,580 and punitive damages of $3,854,320. With prejudgment interest and liquidated damages awarded under a federal statute, the total judgment against defendant was $5,224,272.82. The court also awarded plaintiff her attorney fees.
On appeal, defendant raises a multitude of issues relating to liability, damages, and attorney fees. Court disagreed and affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff, acting in propria persona, appeals from separate judgments dismissing her negligence (toxic mold) action against defendants. The dismissals followed sustaining of defendants’ demurrers to plaintiff’s third amended complaint, due to plaintiff’s failure to allege when injury occurred, so as to avoid a statute of limitations problem apparent on the face of the complaint. Plaintiff contends she was entitled to file a fourth amended complaint without leave of court under Code of Civil Procedure section 472 (undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure). Plaintiff alternatively contends she should be allowed leave to amend. Court concluded that the trial court correctly sustained defendants’ demurrers to the third amended complaint, but plaintiff should be granted leave to amend.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that 16-year-old (the minor) committed first degree burglary. The court placed the minor on probation and ordered him to comply with certain terms and conditions, which included the condition that he is not to associate with persons involved in gang activities. Minor was also ordered to pay $706.59 in victim restitution. The minor appeals, contending (1) the juvenile court erroneously denied his motion to exclude his confession as involuntary and obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694] (Miranda), (2) the juvenile court erroneously calculated victim restitution, and (3) the juvenile court abused its discretion in imposing the gang condition. Court reduced the amount of victim restitution but otherwise affirmed the judgment.

Reggie’s briefs on appeal, filed in pro per, raise issues regarding the trial court’s characterization of the real property owned by the parties, the award of a timeshare to Kathleen, the termination of Kathleen’s obligation to pay Reggie spousal support, the order requiring him to return to work, the failure of the trial court to find any misappropriation of funds or property by Kathleen, and an order granting an ex parte motion brought by Kathleen at the time of the custody trial. Reggie’s opening brief also contains headings concerning a “Subaru Loan,” Kathleen’s “Declaration of Disclosure,” “Lying/Perjury,” and “Inadequate Representation.” In his reply brief, Reggie requests additional relief regarding venue, custody, and reimbursement for community contributions to Kathleen’s education. Judgment Affirmed.

While working on a construction project, plaintiff fell to his death through unsupported fiber glass panels on the metal roof of a building in Depot Park. Donald Frazier owned cross-defendant Frazier Construction, Inc. (Frazier), which contracted with Depot Park owner and cross-complainant U.S. National Leasing, LLC (U.S. National) to do some construction work. Donald Frazier’s widow and children filed a complaint against U.S. National seeking wrongful death and survivorship damages. U.S. National cross-complained against Frazier, asserting that the contract entered into between the parties required Frazier to (1) purchase commercial liability insurance of at least $1 million naming U.S. National as an additional insured, and (2) indemnify and hold U.S. National harmless from claims arising out of performance. Court affirmed the judgment.

To prove the attempted murder and assault charges against defendant, the prosecution had to rely on the testimony of a brain-damaged victim and a volatile eyewitness with mental health and substance abuse problems as well as a 20-year history of criminal conduct. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by excluding character evidence of the witness and by denying his motion for a mistrial after the victim blurted out prejudicial allegations of defendant’s prior conduct. Finding no abuse of discretion, instructional error, or incompetency of counsel, court affirmed.