CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
R.T. (Father) appeals from the dependency court’s order, entered at the six-month review hearing, continuing dependency jurisdiction over his minor daughter, J.T. Father contends the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether to maintain its jurisdiction and, applying the correct standard, substantial evidence did not support the order. We disagree, and accordingly affirm.
|
Appellant Joel Gonzalez appeals from the judgment of conviction for murder. Appellant challenges the form jury instructions on self-defense and accomplice testimony, and he challenges the court’s orders relating to the examination of witnesses during the trial. Appellant also maintains that Proposition 57 applies and entitles him to a fitness/transfer hearing in juvenile court to determine whether he should be treated as a juvenile rather than an adult offender. . As we shall explain, except Proposition 57, appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse and remand this case for the juvenile court to hold a transfer hearing in accord with Proposition 57 and the applicable provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
|
Ernie Lopez appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); counts 1 and 2) and one count of eluding a police officer with wanton disregard for safety (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; count 3). In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true two prior serious felony conviction allegations (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prior strike conviction allegations (§§ 667, subd. (d); 1170.12, subd. (b)).
|
On October 18, 2016, a jury convicted appellant Sean Levon Watson of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; counts 1 and 2) and one count of child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a); count 3). As to the robbery counts, the jury found true the allegations that appellant personally discharged and used a firearm, and that he was armed with a firearm in committing the offense (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c); 12022, subd. (a)(1)). As to the child abuse count, the jury found true the allegation that appellant personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) On December 5, 2016, appellant admitted having suffered two prior “strike” convictions. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).)
|
Appellant Ze’ev Rav-Noy and his co-appellants challenge the trial court’s order denying their petition to compel arbitration of a business dispute with respondents Hertzel Illulian and the Jewish Educational Movement. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding that they had waived arbitration by withdrawing from the prior arbitration proceedings. As we shall explain, the trial court did not err in denying the petition. Both parties demonstrated their intent to abandon the arbitration process. Accordingly, we affirm the order.
|
Plaintiff Bradford D. Lund sued his twin sister, defendant Michelle A. Lund, seeking injunctive relief and damages for the alleged breach of a covenant not to sue. The covenant not to sue was contained in a settlement agreement resolving disputes over the internal affairs of two residuary trusts. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant from continuing to participate as a litigant (and from financially supporting any other litigant) in an ongoing involuntary conservatorship proceeding against plaintiff in Arizona. Defendant brought a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)
|
Stacy Dalgleish, the petitioner in a marital dissolution proceeding, and Piero Selvaggio, the respondent in that proceeding, both appeal from postjudgment orders of the trial court. Those orders enforced one of the terms of the parties’ stipulated judgment, which required an equalization payment from Selvaggio to Dalgleish following a joint appraisal of certain real property. Dalgleish claims that the trial court erred in awarding interest on that payment from the date of the trial court’s ruling rather than the date the payment was due, about 19 months earlier. In his cross-appeal, Selvaggio claims that the trial court erred in finding that the appraisal in fact was a joint appraisal as required by the judgment. We agree with Dalgleish’s claim and reject Selvaggio’s. We therefore reverse the trial court’s orders only with respect to the date when interest on the equalization payment began to accrue.
|
Appellant Keegan Lee Czirban appeals from an order finding him incompetent to stand trial and committing him to Napa State Hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1370. Appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel submitted a declaration stating that he notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Counsel also advised appellant of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
|
Minor D.T. appeals an order declaring him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, based on a finding that he committed attempted robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). D.T. contends that out-of-court and in-court identification evidence was introduced at the contested hearing in violation of his right to due process, and that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm
|
Defendants and appellants the City of Huntington Beach and the City Council of Huntington Beach (collectively, City) appeal from a postjudgment order issued by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County awarding $648,512.75 in attorney fees to plaintiffs and respondents The Kennedy Commission, William Adams and Jason Puloe (collectively, Kennedy) under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
|
At Temecula Valley High School’s (TVHS) homecoming football game on September 28, 2012, plaintiff and appellant, Heather Arnzen, a senior and experienced varsity cheerleader at TVHS, fell and suffered a head injury while serving as a “base” for a stunt called the “liberty extension.” The stunt was performed, without safety mats, on the dirt track next to the football field, and Arnzen’s head hit the dirt track when she fell. The dirt track had been sprayed with water before the game but was dry after halftime when the stunt was performed and Arnzen fell. Arnzen sued defendants and respondents, Temecula Valley Unified School District (the District), and her cheer coach, Revan Jebrail, a District employee (collectively, defendants), for her injuries. Arnzen alleged causes of action against each defendant for negligence and premises liability.
|
Michael Dwayne Tryals appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition to reduce his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18 (also referred to as Proposition 47). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). In response to our invitation, Tryals has filed a supplemental brief. After having considered the briefing and having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023