CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion because: (1) there was no substantial evidence to support the decision to deny him reunification services as he neither resisted nor refused drug treatment within the three years prior to the children’s removal; and (2) there was no evidence that providing him services would be detrimental to the children. Court disagrees on both points. Judgment Affirmed.

Mother challenges the respondent juvenile court’s decision to terminate her reunification services as to the minor at the 12-month status review hearing. After a careful review of the record in this matter, court denies the petition.

Plaintiff sued Defendant under section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an injunction against behavior she alleged was annoying and harassing. After a show cause hearing, the trial court found Plaintiff had proven the essential elements necessary for an injunction and entered judgment in her favor. Defendant appeals claiming that the trial court abused its discretion and denied him due process by denying his request for a continuance so that he could retain counsel to represent him at the show cause hearing. Defendant also claims that his conduct, even as found by the trial court, as a matter of law does not provide a basis for injunctive relief under section 527.6. Finally, appellant contends an attorney fee award must be reversed.
Court affirms the judgment in full.

Appellant was found guilty, after a jury trial, of willfully presenting a false insurance claim and making a false statement in support of an insurance claim. The court later suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for 48 months on condition that he spend 10 months in the county jail.
Appellant contends the trial court improperly instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 2.04. Appellant further contends the trial court erred in failing to stay counts two, three, four, five, and six because they were part of a continuous course of conduct, an indivisible transaction, pursuant to section 654. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of second degree murder in the shooting death of his wife. Defendant admitted he shot wife, but claimed he acted out of a heat of passion or in self-defense. Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting certain items of evidence and improperly instructing the jury. Court affirms the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of grand theft, felony petty theft (two counts), and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Each felony conviction constituted a third strike resulting in a total term of 75 years to life. He argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence intended to impeach one of his witnesses, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirms the judgment.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and quash and traverse the search warrant pursuant to which the evidence was seized, appellant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine and operating a “chop shop.” The court imposed a prison term of two years.
On appeal, appellant’s sole contention is that the court erred in denying his motion to traverse. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred in concluding that although the affidavit supporting the warrant did not establish probable cause for the search, under what is commonly called the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule announced in United States v. Leon, suppression was not required. Court affirms.

Appellant pled no contest to check forgery in violation of Penal Code section 470, subdivision (d)), and admitted a “strike.” The court imposed a prison term of 32 months, consisting of the 16-month lower term, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. Following independent review of the record, the court concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist. The judgment is affirmed.

In this case, court decide whether the United States Bankruptcy Code preempts Code of Civil Procedure section 1800, recovery of preferences (Section 1800). In Sherwood Partners, Inc. v. Lycos, Inc. (Sherwood), Judge Kozinski held that the Bankruptcy Code preempted Section 1800. In Haberbush v. Charles & Dorothy Cummins Family Limited Partnership (Haberbush), citing to Judge Nelson’s dissent in Sherwood, held it did not.
Plaintiff argues the trial court erroneously relied on Sherwood, which is nonbinding federal authority, to find the Bankruptcy Code preempts Section 1800. Countrywide recognizes Sherwood is not binding on this court, but contends its reasoning is persuasive and court should rely on it to affirm the trial court’s judgment. By “Supplemental Citation,” Plaintiff suggests that the court rely on Haberbush to reverse the trial court’s judgment. The court found Haberbush persuasive and conclude the Bankruptcy Code does not preempt Section 1800. Judgment Reversed.

Parents of minors, now six years old, and five years old, after receiving family reunification and family maintenance services for five years, parental rights were terminated. Parents separately appeal from the order terminating their parental rights.
Court affirms the order terminating parental rights to minors.

Appellant appeals from an order awarding attorney fees to plaintiff following remand. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 because respondent had not made a reasonable effort to settle its dispute with appellant before filing the underlying lawsuit. Court find no abuse of discretion and therefore affirms the order.

Appellant, mother of a dependant child, appeals from an order after a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 that terminated her parental rights, and found child to be adoptable.
Mother contends that the order must be reversed, without any showing of prejudice, because her guardian ad litem, who was also an attorney at law, substituted for her appointed counsel at the section 366.26 hearing, and performed the dual role of guardian ad litem and counsel for appellant. Court held that the error, if any, would require reversal only upon a showing of prejudice, and affirms.

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing the Humboldt County Superior Court to accept his notice of appeal as timely filed under the constructive filing doctrine.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted, and a writ of habeas corpus issued, to the extent that the notice of appeal filed is deemed constructively and timely filed.

A modification decision.