CA Unpub Decisions

A criminal law decision regarding possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale, and two drug related misdemeanors.
Appellant contends (1) the court erred in instructing the jury by allowing them to infer consciousness of guilt from attempts to suppress evidence; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument; and (3) if appellant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct is barred by counsel’s failure to object, such failure violated appellant’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant was charged with 17 counts of child molestation, and admitted to one prior strike within the "Three Strikes" rule. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike his prior conviction. Court affirms.

Appellants filed a petition to enforce an irrevocable trust’s no contest clause against Respondent. Sustained for failure to state a cause of action. Order Reversed.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, admitted a prior strike allegation, and was sentenced to four years. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant's child was taken away because the child was in danger of molestation and the mother offered no protection. Mother appeals on the basis of: jurisdictional discretion, insufficient evidence to support the removal of child from mother’s custody, the presiding officer should have recused himself, and a violation of the right to freedom of religion. Judgment Affirmed.

An issue dealing with an enforcement of a trust, while Appellant, rightly or wrongly, was trying to defeat it. It is reversed on two counts: Appellant did not violate the no contest clause,and Appellant is entitled to reimbursement for funds spent on improvements to the house. Judgment affirmed that Saturn is the Appellant's property, and that the RV condition is a valid and enforceable condition precedent.

Appeal from orders made at jurisdictional and dispositional hearings. The father argues that the court erred in finding proper notice was provided under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Court held that substantial evidence supports the challenged orders, but reversed for further proceedings to ensure proper notice under the ICWA.

A decision regarding a negotiated guilty plea to taking or driving a car without permission and admitted a prior conviction of that offense. Defendant's counsel presented no argument for reversal but asked this court to review the record for error. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant was declared a vexatious litigant and ordered to post security of $25,000 in his action against respondent, When appellant failed to post the security, his action was dismissed.

A jury convicted Defendant of two counts of attempted murder. The jury also found true an enhancement allegation as to each count that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury to a person other than an accomplice. Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions and enhancements and the trial court erred. No merit is found in Defendants contentions. Judgment Affirmed.

A decision regarding petitions for extraordinary writ review of the order of the juvenile court that terminated reunification services and set the permanency planning hearing. Father does not challenge the services as ordered. He contends that the Department did not provide adequate reunification services. Petition Granted and reunification period extended 6 months.

A decision regarding two counts of resisting an executive officer by force or violence and one count of being under the influence of a controlled substance, and found to have suffered six prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (a), one of which also qualified under Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (b)(i)/1170.12 (the "Three Strikes" law). Defendant argues that his motion under Penal Code section 995 was improperly denied, that his suppression motion was improperly denied, that there were violations of discovery and of his rights, that evidentiary errors were made during the trial, that findings of his prior convictions were improper, that a doubt should have been declared as to his competency to stand trial, that he was improperly sentenced, and that the proceedings were unconstitutional. Judgment Affirmed.

The proceeding arises from subpoenas requiring the depositions of three corporate officers and a comprehensive demand for the production of documents served with the subpoenas. The subpoenas are directed at nonparties by one of the parties to a marital dissolution proceeding. The trial court granted, in large part, a motion to compel the depositions and the production of documents. Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside the trial court's orders. Court issued an order to show cause of why the petition should not be granted. Court now vacates the orders and remands for further proceedings that are consistent with this opinion.

Father of a minor, appeal from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Defendants attorney was properly notified of each date and claimed he did not know his client's whereabouts. Court affirms.