CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff John Medina brought this lawsuit against defendants to stop a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding initiated against his property. Defendants demurred to the complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend on the basis that Medina lacked standing to bring his claims. On appeal, he challenges the order dismissing the case. We affirm.

Daniel Christopher Carbajal challenges his convictions for felony obstructing or resisting an officer by use of force, carrying a loaded firearm in public without being the registered owner, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon. He asks for independent review of the trial court’s Pitchess inquiry. He also contends his convictions must be reversed because the trial court erred in denying his motions for mistrial. Finally, citing People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, he argues reversal is mandated because of the prejudicial effect of inadmissible testimony from the People’s gang expert. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Christopher J. Renner pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a young child over a two-year period and admitted he was ineligible for probation. The prosecution agreed to a maximum sentence of 12 years in state prison, the midterm for the offense. After a lengthy sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the midterm of 12 years. Renner now appeals the sentence on multiple grounds. We affirm.

Following a jury trial, defendant Clinton Adam Delap was convicted of committing a lewd act on a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to the low term of three years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion and denied him due process in admitting evidence of his 2010 possession of child pornography as uncharged misconduct evidence. He also claims the court abused its discretion in denying probation. Finding no error, we shall affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff John Medina brought this lawsuit against defendants to stop a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding initiated against his property. Defendants demurred to the complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend on the basis that Medina lacked standing to bring his claims. On appeal, he challenges the order dismissing the case. We affirm.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred by concluding a cause of action for declaratory relief was barred by the statute of limitations. The declaratory relief cause of action sought a declaration the parties had agreed that a ground lease and an option to extend the term of the ground lease would be assignable.
The court’s ruling was based on the conclusion that the statute of limitations for declaratory relief begins to run when a plaintiff first learns of a disagreement over contract terms. The statute of limitations on a cause of action for declaratory relief concerning the rights and obligations of the parties under a contract does not begin to run, however, until there has been an actual breach of the contract. The evidence at trial established an actual breach of contract did not occur until 2012, within the four-year limitations period for declaratory relief. We therefore reverse the judgment on the declaratory relief cause of action and reman

The minor W.L. admitted to two offenses alleged in two separate petitions, and the juvenile court ordered probation. After successfully completing probation, the minor moved to dismiss both petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 and to dismiss and seal one of them under section 786. The court denied the request concluding In re Jose S. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1107 (Jose S.) precluded relief. On appeal, the parties agree Jose S. is not applicable, and argue remand is required to allow the juvenile court to properly consider the motion. We reverse and remand the order of the juvenile court.

Defendant Andrew Luque appeals from a judgment of conviction. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We have done so and we affirm.

Daniel Lee Amburn appeals from a sentence imposed after he entered a plea agreement. His appointed counsel asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Amburn did not file a supplemental brief, and our review of the record discloses no arguable issues.
We affirm.

H.M. was taken into protective custody in March 2017, at the age of 10, because he tested positive for benzodiazepine. Six months later, after a lengthy jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the juvenile court made a dispositional order vesting custody of H.M. with his father, A.M. (Father). H.M.’s mother, A.S. (Mother) appealed from the dispositional order. We affirmed the dispositional order in a nonpublished opinion, In re H.M. (G055484, May 18, 2018).
In December 2017, while that appeal was pending, Mother brought a petition to change court order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 alleging a change in circumstance necessitated modifying the dispositional order to vest custody of H.M. with her under a family maintenance plan or with her parents (Maternal Grandparents) with reunification services for her. Mother asserted H.M. had become increasingly alienated from and hostile toward her since being placed in Father’s custody.

Leilani J. was declared a dependent child of the juvenile court. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 362.) Leilani’s presumed father, Steven J. (Father), was bypassed for reunification services after a restraining order was entered forbidding him from having any contact with her. Father appeals only from a visitation order made at the dispositional hearing, arguing the juvenile court improperly delegated discretion over his visitation with Leilani to the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency). We disagree and affirm.

Brian J. Doherty appeals an order denying his motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment in favor of Jet Source Charter, Inc. (Jet Source). Doherty contends Jet Source's application to renew the judgment was untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020, subdivision (a). We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Larry Gene Dobson asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. The letter was returned by the post office, marked “return to sender, attempted not known.” We resent the letter, but it was returned again by the post office, marked “return to sender, not in custody.” We contacted appellate counsel and verified that we had defendant’s correct address.

Martin Automotive Group (Martin) brought this action to foreclose on a lien on a Cadillac owned by defendants and cross-complainants Sean Horton and Tina Carmichael (the Hortons). The Hortons cross-complained against Martin alleging breach of the contract to service their car and conversion. The Hortons appeal from the trial court’s denial of their attorney fee motion after determining under Civil Code section 1717 that no party prevailed on the contract. We affirm.