CA Unpub Decisions

I.R., the minor, was removed from her parents’ custody after she disclosed her father had touched her inappropriately. The parents pled no contest to allegations of sexual abuse and failure to protect and were given reunification services. At the twelve-month review hearing, custody was returned to the mother on a plan of Family Maintenance, but father’s visits, although liberalized, remained supervised. Subsequently, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) agency submitted an approval packet seeking to dismiss the dependency. Father objected to dismissal, preferring to wait until the regular review hearing in order to present expert testimony that it was unlikely he ever molested his daughter. The court considered the expert’s preliminary report but denied a continuance. After considering the expert’s evaluation and hearing father’s testimony, the court dismissed the dependency case with exit orders to family court with liberalized visitation for f

Brian Smith and Lauri Leff filed dueling requests for restraining orders against each other. The trial court granted Leff’s request and denied Smith’s. Smith now appeals.
We will hold that Smith has not shown any error and has not provided us with the reporter’s transcripts that would be necessary to do so. Hence, we will affirm.

In this employment discrimination action, the trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiff Eric T. Hicks and in favor of defendant Goodwill Retail Services (Goodwill). Hicks appeals, claiming the trial judge was biased. We will hold that he has not preserved this or any other claim of error and, alternatively, he has not demonstrated bias or any other error.

On March 26, 2018, the trial court in this putative class action filed on January 29, 2013, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to bring the action to trial within five years (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.310 & 583.360). The court then granted plaintiffs’ motion for trial preference, setting the case for trial “immediately” (on April 10, 2018). This was six days before the five-year period was to expire, calculated to include a disputed 43-day tolling period the court found applicable under section 583.340, subdivision (b) (hereafter, section 583.340(b)) (excluding from the calculation time during which “[p]rosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined”).

Mother Katrina K. appeals the termination of her parental rights concerning her son, dependent child M.F. (Minor.) We reverse because the juvenile court improperly denied her request for a contested hearing prior to terminating her parental rights.

Defendant and appellant Lan Thi Hoang appeals from an order of the superior court finding her incompetent to stand trial under Penal Code section 1368 and ordering her admitted to Patton State Hospital (Patton) for treatment. Appellant contends the finding of incompetency is not supported by substantial evidence and challenges the trial court’s failure to hold a Marsden hearing. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) We affirm.

In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, defendant and appellant Solomon Miller was charged with “malice aforethought” murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and first degree burglary (§ 459; count 2). As to the murder charge, it was alleged that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a crowbar. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The special circumstance of murder while engaged in a burglary was also alleged. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) The jury found defendant guilty of both counts and found the enhancement and special circumstance true. Defendant was sentenced to life in state prison without the possibility of parole, plus one year for the weapon enhancement on count 1. The trial court imposed the upper term of six years for the burglary charge, which was stayed pursuant to section 654.

These three consolidated appeals arise out of acrimony between neighbors. The first appeal involves the denial of an application filed by Sami Ammari (Ammari) for civil harassment restraining orders (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6) against Max Christensen (Max). The other two appeals involve the grant of applications filed by Mary Frances Christensen (Mary) and Hermine Temurian (Temurian) for civil harassment restraining orders against Ammari. Ammari challenges all three of the orders. Because he offers no argument regarding the denial of his application for civil harassment restraining orders, we deem his appeal from that order abandoned and therefore order it dismissed. (Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 710–711; Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1120.) With respect to the orders granting the applications of Mary and Temurian, we find no error and affirm.

Plaintiff Tatevik Harutyunyan was bitten by a dog housed with the tenant of defendant, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Defendant moved for summary judgment contending, among other things, that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff because it had no prior knowledge of the dog’s presence on the leased premises or of the dog’s vicious nature. The trial court granted defendant’s motion and entered judgment for defendant. We affirm.

Defendants Formosa Café, Inc., and Vincent Jung appeal from the default judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs Broseph’s Restaurant Group, LLC, Travis Lester, and Justin Safier. Defendants contend that the trial court erred in declining to set aside their default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). We affirm the judgment.

Jaison Armstrong was convicted after a jury trial of second degree robbery. On appeal Armstrong, who conceded at trial he had participated with two other men in the theft of merchandise from an electronics store, contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding the theft was accomplished by means of force or fear and, therefore, a robbery. Armstrong also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s findings a principal had used a firearm during the commission of the offense and the robbery was committed for the benefit of, or in association with, a criminal street gang. We affirm the conviction and true findings on the enhancement allegations, but remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike or dismiss the firearm-use enhancement pursuant to newly amended Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h).

Twenty-one years after the 1991 murder of Usha Patel, her husband, defendant Shanker Patel, was arrested for the crime. Defendant was prosecuted on a murder-for-hire theory. The jury did not reach a verdict in defendant’s first trial. In the second, the jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found lying-in-wait special circumstances to be true (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)). The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Defendant raises a host of issues on appeal. The Attorney General concedes only that a probation revocation fine was improperly opposed. Finding a number of issues forfeited and no prejudicial error except for the conceded one, we modify the judgment and affirm.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order to revoke the mandatory supervision of defendant Victor Cruz Miranda for failure to report to probation upon his release from jail. Defendant challenges this order as unsupported by substantial evidence that he willfully failed to report. Defendant also contends the trial court miscalculated his presentence mandatory supervision credits by 20 days, a fact not disputed by the People. We instruct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect this additional 20 days of credit, and in all other regards affirm the judgment.

Defendant Ken Crowell was sentenced to three consecutive eight-month county jail terms and five years’ probation, subsequently modified to replace two of the eight-month jail terms with home detention and electronic monitoring, after he pleaded no contest to three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. On appeal, his appointed counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Crowell was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, and did not do so. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with our Wende obligations and find no arguable issues. We thus affirm.