CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Sara Hassman filed this Los Angeles County Superior Court civil lawsuit for damages based on conduct that occurred during her earlier Orange County Superior Court marriage dissolution action. This is plaintiff’s second appeal from rulings in favor of defendant Seastrom and Seastrom, the law firm that represented her former husband in the family law matter.
Seastrom and Seastrom responded to this action by filing an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion, which the trial court granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) In the first appeal, this court affirmed the trial court’s order and awarded the law firm costs on appeal, which included attorney fees. (Hassman v. Seastrom and Seastrom (Aug. 16, 2017, B267984 [nonpub. opn.].)

Defendant and appellant Chance Blackman contends that the trial court erred by concluding that it was required to impose consecutive sentences for his convictions for forcible oral copulation, in violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c)(2)(A), and forcible rape, in violation of section 261, subdivision (a)(2). The two convictions arose from Blackman’s conduct with one victim in a relatively short period of time, and Blackman argues that the offenses did not occur on “separate occasions” as defined under the mandatory consecutive sentencing provision of section 667.6, subdivision (d). We affirm.

D.G. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her infant son, D.P. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She contends Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) and the court failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into mother’s possible Indian ancestry, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We agree. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the order and remand the matter to allow CWS and the court to fully comply with ICWA and related California law.

D.H. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders made after the court adjudged her daughter M.H. (born in 2002) a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Mother contends that substantial evidence did not support the jurisdiction and disposition orders. As we explain, the juvenile court’s orders terminating dependency jurisdiction and returning M.H. to Mother’s custody render the appeal moot and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

In this appeal, Jeanne Salamon (Salamon) challenges a trial court ex parte order reaffirming a prior court order made pursuant to a settlement and redirecting interpleaded funds to Remington Chase (Chase). Her arguments are confusing and incomplete and offer no grounds to reverse the trial court’s order granting Chase’s ex parte application. Accordingly, we affirm.

D.L. appeals an order adjudicating him a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The juvenile court found true the allegation that D.L. committed first degree residential burglary with the victims present during the offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c).) On a petition for another offense, the court found true the allegation that D.L. carried an unregistered loaded handgun. (§ 25850, subd. (a).) The court ordered D.L. placed at a camp community program for five to seven months and set a maximum confinement period of six years eight months.
D.L. contends the juvenile court erred in sustaining the petition because there was insufficient evidence to support the residential burglary finding. We affirm.

The issue before us is whether substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s placement of P.B., then 15 years old, in foster care instead of with Paul B. (father), who was the nonoffending parent and desired custody of P.B. We conclude that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding of detriment were P.B. placed in father’s custody and affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional findings.

Deon Timothy Booth (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of second degree robbery and misdemeanor assault. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting independent review of the record on appeal for any arguable issues. On July 3, 2018, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues for us to consider. On July 18 and 19, 2018, defendant filed letter briefs raising multiple issues. We affirm.

In this marriage dissolution case, Ganna Yenyk appeals from an order: (1) denying in part her request that her former husband Mehmet Elgin contribute to her attorney fees pursuant to Family Code section 2030; (2) denying her request for sanctions under section 271; and (3) denying her request that Elgin pay all costs associated with a prospective court-ordered child custody evaluation. We affirm.

At issue in this appeal is whether defendant and respondent City of Azusa (City) can issue building permits for a new residential development project known as Rosedale (Rosedale Project). The answer to that question is dependent on whether plaintiff and appellant Azusa Unified School District (District) certified that the developer of the Rosedale Project complied with District’s demands to mitigate the impact of the new construction on its school facilities under Education Code section 17620, subdivision (b).

Defendant Robert Anthony Lopez pleaded nolo contendre to a charge of driving with a suspended license after being previously convicted of driving with a suspended license. (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (b)(2).) A jury thereafter convicted him of: (1) causing serious bodily injury to another while fleeing a peace officer (§ 2800.3, subd. (a)); (2) driving under the influence of alcohol and doing an illegal act, causing bodily injury to another (§§ 23153, subd. (a), 23560); (3) driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent and doing an illegal act, causing bodily injury to another (§§ 23153, subd. (b), 23560). The jury also found true certain sentence enhancement allegations regarding the infliction of great bodily injury upon others in the commission of the crimes. The trial court sentenced defendant to 24 years in prison.

In an earlier opinion (People v. Asbury (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1222 (Asbury I)), we reversed defendant and appellant Diane C. Asbury’s conviction for second degree murder and remanded the case to the trial court, giving the prosecution the option either to retry Asbury for murder or to accept a modification of the judgment to reflect a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. (Id. at p. 1232.) The prosecution chose the latter option, and the trial court resentenced Asbury to 21 years in prison. The court selected the high term of 11 years, plus a 10-year enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) for personal use of a firearm in the offense.

Over defendant’s objections that the prosecution failed to authenticate or lay a foundation for the admissibility of recorded telephone calls, the trial court received a compact disc (CD) into evidence. Based solely on that evidence, the trial court determined defendant made a series of telephone calls to the person with whom he was prohibited, by the terms of his felony probation, from having any contact. The trial court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to the upper term of four years in prison. We reverse.

In his first appeal, case No. B284172, appellant Jeffrey M. (Father) challenges the court’s April 26, 2017 order sustaining an amended dependency petition finding that Father sexually molested his daughter, Faith M. (Neither Megan M. (Mother) nor Father have appealed the court’s earlier order sustaining the original petition.) Father argues that Faith’s hearsay accounts of sexual abuse cannot constitute substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding. We exercise our discretion to consider the issue, but disagree and, accordingly, affirm the order.
In his second appeal, case No. B289622, Father appeals the court’s April 2, 2018 order terminating Father’s parental rights. Father’s appointed counsel advised the court that there were no arguable issues in this appeal. Father filed a supplemental letter brief, which fails to identify any legally cognizable error in the juvenile court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order terminating Father’s parent