CA Unpub Decisions

Jackie H. (mother) appeals from an October 2017 juvenile court order terminating her parental rights with respect to her daughter, Jade N. (born April 2014), at a permanency planning hearing held pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code . We appointed counsel to represent mother on appeal. On January 3, 2018, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, finding no arguable issues. By accompanying declaration, counsel reported that she had advised mother that a “No Issues Statement” would be filed and provided her with a copy of the appellate record. On January 4, 2018, we notified mother that a “No Issues Statement” was filed by her attorney, and we subsequently received several written responses from mother. An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (

Ashley M. (Mother) and Gustavo P. (Father) separately petition this court for extraordinary relief from dependency court orders terminating reunification services as to their child H.P. (Minor) and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for the child. Mother and Father argue that they are entitled to additional reunification services, with Mother claiming that, contrary to the court’s determination, she had made substantive progress in the services offered to her and there was a substantial likelihood that Minor could be returned to her care by the 12-month review, and Father claiming that he was denied reasonable services. We conclude that neither parent has shown that the dependency court abused its discretion in terminating reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing, and therefore we shall affirm.

In an earlier appeal involving petitioner Major Eberhart, we reversed sentence enhancements associated with prior convictions and remanded for a retrial on the prior conviction allegations. Eberhart now seeks a writ of mandate compelling respondent superior court to grant his motion to dismiss the prior conviction allegations. He contends no good cause was shown for the failure to retry the prior conviction allegations within 60 days of the filing of the remittitur in the superior court, in violation of his statutory speedy trial rights under Penal Code section 1382. We agree with Eberhart and shall direct issuance of the writ of mandate.

Presumed father William A. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (.26 hearing). Father contends the court erred by refusing his request to continue the .26 hearing and by declining to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). Father also claims compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C., § 1900 et seq.) has “not yet been attained.”
We affirm.

The juvenile court denied family reunification services to F.G., the father of M.G. (Father), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) (section 361.5(b)(10) and (11)), which provide family reunification services need not be offered to a parent of a dependent child if services for a sibling of that child previously had been terminated because the parent failed to reunify with the sibling and the parent thereafter has not made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the sibling’s removal. On appeal, Father contends, although the juvenile court previously terminated reunification services for M.G.’s three half siblings because Father failed to reunify with them, the evidence at the disposition hearing for M.G. was insufficient to justify bypassing Father for services. We agree and reverse.

Appellant Michael David Morrison appeals from a judgment following a
contested probation violation hearing. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record and appellant’s brief, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

Appellant Garry M. Grady appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and his admission to a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

Plaintiff David Boyd sued his brother William for some $700,000 allegedly owed on oral loan agreements dating back to at least 1981. Following a defense judgment, David contends the trial court erred when it treated William’s motions for directed verdict and nonsuit as a motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 638.1 and found the action barred by various affirmative defenses. The court’s ruling was procedurally sound and David’s failure to address its dispositive rulings on William’s equitable defenses in his opening brief forfeits any challenge to those rulings on appeal. We therefore affirm.

Rodrick W. appeals from a dispositional order after the juvenile court sustained allegations of second degree robbery, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle and receiving stolen property. Rodrick contends the evidence was insufficient to prove robbery or the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. He alternatively argues he was improperly found to have received stolen property based on the same conduct underlying the juvenile court’s true finding on the unlawful driving or taking a vehicle count. His assertions are meritless, so we affirm.

Juan Pablo Mendez appeals from an order extending his civil commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). Mendez contends the judgment should be reversed because the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury to consider the consequences of its verdict. He also argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting case-specific hearsay in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez), his counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors resulted in an unfair trial. Because we agree with his first contention and reverse for a new trial, we find it unnecessary to resolve his remaining claims.

Isaiah B. was declared a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after it found he committed two counts of witness intimidation (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(2)). Isaiah appeals, asserting the juvenile court (1) violated his due process rights and the separation of powers doctrine by amending the petition, on its own motion, at the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing; (2) made findings unsupported by substantial evidence; (3) construed the statute to violate the First Amendment; (4) improperly allowed the People to fragment a single offense into two counts; (5) failed to designate his “wobbler” offenses as either misdemeanors or felonies; and (6) and imposed a vague and overbroad probation condition. We affirm.

Katherine Zapata (Katherine) appeals from orders issued by the family court in response to her request for temporary child and spousal support from Marco Vanderlaan (Marco) and her subsequent request to modify support. Katherine argues that the family court erred by refusing to issue a statement of decision in connection with her first request, by awarding child support below guideline, by failing to consider and apply statutory factors in awarding spousal support, by failing to make findings as to the marital standard of living, and by refusing to modify its initial orders. We conclude that the family court erred in denying Katherine’s motion to modify child support without addressing Katherine’s argument that the amount of child support to which the parties had stipulated was a below-guideline amount. Accordingly, we vacate the family court order denying Katherine’s motion to modify child support and remand the matter for further consideration of that motion. we affirm.

Plaintiffs Eric and Vinetta Boice and Yowie Stromberg sued the owners and managers of the Harcourt Hotel for unlawfully preventing them from acquiring rights accorded to long-term tenants by making them check out before they stayed at the hotel for 30 days. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, ruling that individual issues related to class membership and damages predominated over common issues. The court’s ruling is legally and factually sound, so we affirm.

Defendant Stanley Moore appeals from a final judgment following a court trial, raising one issue: was the evidence sufficient to find him guilty of attempted murder?
We conclude yes, and affirm the judgment.