CA Unpub Decisions

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.

Appellant appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, demurrers filed by defendants cleaning up a former landfill designated as a hazardous waste site by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). None of the individual defendants owned the landfill but each deposited waste there before it closed in 1984 and, at the time of the complaint, each participated in site remediation pursuant to a 2003 consent decree with DTSC. CDG's complaint sought to impose Proposition 65 liability on the defendants with allegations that: (1) "discharge[s]" and "release[s]" of dangerous chemicals continued unabated at the site during remediation despite defendants' attempts at containment, and (2) the defendants failed to post warnings at the site and therefore they "knowingly and intentionally expose[d]" persons at and near the site to dangerous chemicals. CDG's complaint also claimed these alleged Proposition 65 violations constituted unfair business practices. All claims fail. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant contends the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss probation revocation proceedings. Appellant argues that because over eight months elapsed between the summary revocation of his probation and his arraignment on the probation violation, his rights under the California and United States Constitutions to a speedy probation revocation hearing were violated. Court affirms.

This case involves defendant's alleged breach of a settlement agreement in which he promised not to aid anyone in suing plaintiffs. Court concludeds that the juvenile court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting "without prejudice" defendant's motion for a protective order shielding defendant's lawyer from being deposed or called as a witness, but must entertain a motion to lift the protective order on reman, and did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. Judgment Reversed.

Appellant, was convicted by a jury of second degree robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, a knife. The jury further found that appellant personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery. Appellant challenges the assault with a deadly weapon conviction and personal use of a deadly weapon finding on two grounds. According to appellant, he could not be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon because it is a necessarily included offense of robbery with a personal use of a deadly weapon enhancement. Appellant further argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he personally used a knife in the commission of the robbery and assault. Judgment Affirmed.

A criminal law decision regarding murder. Murder was committed to prevent the victim from testifying in a criminal proceeding, and residential burglary. Independant review found no arguable issues. Judgment Affirmed.

Mother appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights as to her daughter. The court cound no errors. Court Affirmed.

Mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her five sons, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellant contends the court erred in failing both to apply the benefit exception set forth in subdivision (c)(1)(A) of section 366.26 and to consider Victor's wishes regarding adoption, in accordance with subdivision (h)(1). Court concludes that mother has forfeited her right to complain on appeal as she failed to raise these issues below and no error has been demonstrated. Court affirms.

Mother challenges the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her son, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellant contends reversal of the order is required due to noncompliance by the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and/or failure of the juvenile court to apply the "benefit exception to adoption"? set forth in subdivision (c)(1)(A) of section 366.26. While court find no merit to mother's latter argument, the court agrees that remand is necessary to ascertain whether minor is an Indian child for purposes of the ICWA.

Proceeding in mandamus following the superior court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the denial of parole. Petition granted to address venue and appointment of counsel issues.

Respondent, Superior Court, granted the summary judgment motion of defendants and real parties in interest, in the medical malpractice action filed by plaintiff and petitioner. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion because it found plaintiff's expert declaration in opposition to the motion was "patently inadequate" and it refused to consider a late-filed amended declaration. Plaintiff filed this action for a writ of mandate. Court granted an alternative writ and stayed the proceedings. Court concluded that defendants' expert declaration was insufficient to establish facts from which a reasonable trier of fact would find the defendants acted within the standard of care. Therefore, even if plaintiff's expert declaration was inadmissible, defendants were not entitled to summary judgment. Court issued a peremptory writ.

In this personal injury action arising from a car crash, plaintiff appeals from a jury verdict that found defendant not negligent. On appeal, plaintiff contends defendant's own testimony established she was negligent as a matter of law, the trial court erred prejudicially in allowing one of defendant's experts to testify, and in limiting plaintiff's cross-examination of that expert. As court explain, plaintiff's appeal crashes on the well-worn review paths of substantial evidence and inadequate record. Court affirms.

The father of 16-year-old minor, appeals from orders of the Mono County Juvenile Court declaring minor a dependent, removing her from his custody, awarding custody to her mother, and terminating jurisdiction.
On appeal, the father contends the evidence was insufficient to support assumption of jurisdiction, removal of minor from his custody,placement with the mother, and termination of jurisdiction. Court affirms the judgment.

The mother of two minor children declared dependents of the juvenile court (Mother) has appealed from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 order that terminated her parental rights as to the minors.