CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals from an order revoking probation. Appellant's sole claim is that in imposing sentence the trial court failed to exercise informed discretion, and that the matter should be remanded to enable the court to so do. Court rejected the claim and affirms the judgment.

Appellants, parents, appeal the juvenile court's order, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, terminating their parental rights with respect to their children. Appellants contend (1) the juvenile court's finding that the parent-child relationship exception to adoption did not apply was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the court's finding that the sibling relationship exception to adoption did not apply was not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the court abused its discretion by failing to consider whether the parent-child relationship and sibling exceptions to adoption in combination were applicable in the present case. Court affirm.

Appellant filed a complaint against her insurance company and its corporate successor-in-interest alleging they breached their contract and acted in bad faith when they failed to pay her disability claim. A jury agreed and awarded over $1.1 million in damages and attorney fees. Appellant now appeals claiming the trial court instructed the jury incorrectly on the issue of punitive damages. Court agree and will reverse and remand for further proceedings.

A decision regarding appeals arise out of a legal malpractice action.
Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment, contending the trial court erred by ruling that their real estate broker was their agent for purposes of dealing with defendants, the trial court committed prejudicial error when it purportedly instructed the jury to impute the broker’s negligence to them and to consider whether they read the contract documents before signing them, the trial court erred by excluding certain evidence at trial and by granting a nonsuit for the broker in a cross-claim filed by defendants. In a separate appeal from an order after trial, Plaintiffs contend the trial court abused its discretion by denying in part their motion to tax costs. Defendants filed a separate appeal from a postjudgment order denying their motion for an award of attorney fees. Judgment and two post judgment orders Affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine base, being under the influence of a controlled substance and possessing narcotic paraphernalia. On appeal, Defendant was notified of his right to submit an argument. No argument was submitted. Judgment Affirmed

Defendant plead guilty to transporting a controlled substance for sale, driving while having a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b), and a prior conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant admitted to violating his probation. On appeal, Defendant was notified of his right to submit an argument. No argument was submitted. Judgment Affirmed.

Minor admitted to violating his probation. On appeal, Minor was
notified of his right to submit an argument. No argument was submitted. Judgment Affirmed.

A criminal law decision regarding assault with a deadly weapon, and two related misdemeanors. Defendant appealled suggesting that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and received a suspended prison sentence, probation and 365 days in county jail, along with other terms of probation. Defendant filed a Nonstatutory Motion to Vacate Judgment; Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asserting ineffective assistance of counsel as to the immigration consequences of his 2004 plea. On appeal, Defendat was notified on his right to submit a written argument. No argument was submitted. Judgment Affirmed.

A criminal law decision regading sale of cocaine base, and sale of a substance falsely represented to be cocaine base with a prior strike conviction for robbery.
Defendant admitted violating probation and ordered to his previously suspended sentence of three years in prison with a 600 day custody credit. On appeal, defendant contends that his sentence must be reversed because the aggravating factor used as a basis to impose the upper term was not determined by a jury as required. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse and related charges. On appeal, he challenges: (1) the trial court's exclusion of certain evidence reflecting unfavorably on his wife, (2) the trial court's admission of evidence of prior incidents of domestic violence, (3) the trial court's instruction to a deadlocked jury, and (4) the effective assistance of his counsel. Court found no errors. Judgment Affirmed..

A modification decision.

Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. A firearm allegation and two strikes were found to be true. Appellant claims the court erroneously admitted evidence, denied his motion to allow the jury to view the scene of the crime, and failed to obtain his knowing and voluntary waiver of a jury trial on his priors. Appellant also argues instructional error and prosecutorial misconduct. Appellant argues that he should have been convicted of manslaughter, not second degree murder. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant appeals the judgment sending him to prison for 16 years after a jury convicted him of robbery. Subsequent to the trial, the court found he had three prior "strike"? convictions, three prior serious felony convictions, and two prior prison terms. Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court failed to instruct sua sponte as to the lesser included offense of attempted robbery and as to the definition of the force that could be used to prevent a thief from escaping. Appellant also finds error in the court's failure to instruct sua sponte on the unanimity instruction. Finally, appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings by the court that his prior burglary convictions were serious felonies and "strikes."? Court affirms.