Week of: April 02, 2018
Publication Date: April 09, 2018
Appellate Decisions – Summaries
From the First Appellate District –
- In re M.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law [OR] Alameda County Social Services Agency v. T.H. et alterius [AND] E.W., objector and appellant; where the court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s order that one-year-old M.H. remain with his current non-relative foster home in Minnesota rather than be placed with his maternal great aunt in California. The Court considered that neither the statutory preference for relative placement nor the statutory preference for caretaker placement were applicable here when a great aunt is not a ‘relative’ under the code and the caretaker is not on a permanency plan. Rather, it upheld the court’s determination that the Minnesota placement was in the best interests of the child under the abuse of discretion standard.
From the Second Appellate District –
- Efigenia Garcia v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; where the appeals court modified and affirmed the entry of judgment on an issue of attorney’s fees. The Court held that a consumer is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act when the parties entered into a confidential agreement, and the sole issue was whether Mercedes-Benz was required to pay for dealer add-ons after already agreeing to fully replace a car whose engine failed entirely after one month of use.
From the Third Appellate District –
- The People v. Roosevelt Beatty; where, in the published portion of the case, the appeals court affirmed the Yolo County superior judge’s jurisdiction over defendant’s transportation and sale of methamphetamine case, because, although most of the criminal acts took place in Sacramento County, a judge’s determination of venue will be upheld as long as there is some evidence that venue was proper – here, the evidence included calls placed from Yolo County and the use of a drug supplier in Yolo County.
Supreme Court – Roundup
This Week, the Supreme Court published 2 cases:
- The People v. Mark Buza; the California high court upheld the misdemeanor conviction of Mr. Buza for failing to provide a DNA swab under the 2004 California Proposition 69, which requires DNA collection for all persons arrested on a felony. The Supreme Court held that both the U.S. and California constitutions permit DNA collection for arrestees on felony charges.
- In re Roy Butler; the court held that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the use of ‘base terms’ in a compensation calculation in a 2013 settlement agreement derivative of Mr. Butler’s indeterminate life sentence. Butler was released on parole in 2014, but when the statutory scheme of the California Code excised the use of ‘base terms’ this change materially affected the terms of the settlement agreement and requires the lower court to relieve Mr. Butler of his obligations to calculate ‘base terms’ in the agreement.
In the Supreme Court’s Weekly Summary of Accepted Cases, the court has announced that no cases were accepted during the week of April 02, 2018.