CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting, under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), evidence that defendant committed a prior bad act. First, defendant contends that the prior bad act was not sufficiently similar to the charged offense to support the inference that appellant harbored the same intent. Second, defendant contends that the evidence of the prior bad act was unduly prejudicial.

Appellant appeals from a judgment dismissing his claims against respondent entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent on the grounds that respondent had no duty to defend appellant against a cross-action filed against him in connection with the sale of real property in Malibu, California. Court affirm.

This is an action for declaratory relief to construe a water supply contract between a water district and one of the landowners in the district. The preamble of the contract includes a recital stating that the district â€

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of oral copulation on an unconscious person, burglary, and prowling. On appeal, defendant claims there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for oral copulation and burglary. Defendant claims the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a reasonable but mistaken belief that the victim was awake is a defense. As well as claims that the prosecutor and trial judge were guilty of misconduct. Court affirms the judgment.

A minor, appeals a juvenile court order that he be committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA) for a maximum period of 18 months. On appeal, minor asserts the trial court erred in ordering the CYA commitment because (1) it did not conduct a mental health evaluation to determine the extent of the minor's mental disability (2) it violated the separation of powers doctrine by referring the minor's case to the Resources and Intensive Services Committee (RISC) for investigation into dispositional alternatives and (3) it did not find a probable benefit to the minor from a CYA commitment.

Husband appeals from several rulings made by the trial court in connection with appellant's obligation to provide child support. Court affirms.

Appeal from the juvenile court's order denying motion to set aside all prior orders for lack of notice in dependency proceedings involving his son under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Appellant contends the juvenile court erroneously denied appellant's motion as untimely. Appellant also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

Juvenile court found true allegations that appellant, committed the offenses of battery upon a peace officer and resisting an executive officer. Court remand for modification of the order to eliminate the ambiguity. In all other respects, court affirms the court's findings and ensuing judgment.

A criminal law decision regarding possession of methamphetamine for sale with a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon.

The law firm of McMillan & Tkach and its two partners, R. Wayne McMillan and John A Tkach, appeal from a judgment in favor of attorney David Cordier for legal fees and costs in representing the firm and its partners in fee litigation with a former client of the partnership. Court affirms the judgment as to the law firm and Tkach. Court reverse as to McMillan.

Appeal from judgments entered upon appellants convictions by jury of assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily injury and mayhem.

Appellant was convicted upon a guilty plea of grand theft by embezzlement for stealing fans and inflatable signs from employer.

Appeal from the order revoking probation previously granted upon his certified plea of no contest to inflicting corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant. On revocation of probation, the suspended upper term sentence of four years in prison was ordered into effect. Appellant contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights when it imposed the upper term. Court affirms.

Petitioner, the alleged father of the minor, seeks an extraordinary writ to order the juvenile court to provide reunification services, visitation and custody to him. Petitioner also challenges the order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Court deny the petition.