CA Unpub Decisions

Trimas Corporation (Trimas[1]) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (Lab. Code,[2] §§ 5950, 5952; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.495.) Trimas contends the WCAB erroneously concluded an employee may proceed to the dispute resolution process without first timely objecting to an employer's utilization review determination, and that the WCAB erred in finding the issue waived as not raised at trial. Court will deny the petition.

Rudy Miranda worked as a locksmith at a university campus in Fullerton. His office was located next to a vacant lot, used in 2005 for stockpiling excess dirt from a large construction project. Miranda contracted the infectious fungal disease Coccidioidomycosis, commonly called â€

G.V. (appellant) appeals from juvenile court orders declaring his son I.V. (minor) to be a dependent child of the court and ordering minor to remain in the care of his mother (mother). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 302.)[1] Appellant raises four arguments on appeal. He maintains that (1) he was denied due process of law because the juvenile dependency petition, which alleged, among other things, that mother had failed to protect minor due to â€

This case presents the question of whether a terminated employee working in the area of sales has a viable claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy under Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 (Tameny) against her subsequent employer when the employee's former employer contacts the employee's subsequent employer and informs it that the employee had signed an agreement with the former employer which prohibited the employee â€

Jamel Durden appeals from his conviction of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) in No. A121901, claiming that one of the police witnesses who identified him at trial was improperly allowed to assert a surveillance location privilege under Evidence Code section 1040 as to the vantage point from which he made his observations, without imposition by the court of an adverse finding under Evidence Code section 1042. He further requests that we review the sealed record of an in camera review of documents pursuant to a motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
In a related petition for writ of habeas corpus, No. A126649, Durden claims that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by allowing the prosecution to introduce a mug shot of him, without redacting information on the photograph revealing that it had been taken in connection with a prior arrest. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 (Strickland).) Defense counsel also failed to object when the prosecutor and police witnesses repeatedly referred to the photograph as a â€

Bret William Bogue (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to felony management of a location used for the unlawful manufacture and storage of a controlled substance (marijuana) (Health & Saf. Code,[1] § 11366.5). He contends the trial court: (1) abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea in light of a change in the law that affected his defense that he was growing marijuana as part of a medical use collective; and (2) erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We reject the contentions and affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
An information filed February 4, 2008, charged appellant with cultivation of marijuana (§ 11358, count 1) and possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359, count 2). According to the probation report,[2] â€

In this civil action commenced by the County of Sonoma (the County) to abate a public nuisance, defendants Manuel A. Brazil, Jody I. Brazil, Lawrence Johnson and Greenko, Inc., appeal from (1) a July 7, 2008 judgment in favor of the County that directs defendants to comply with a permanent injunction prohibiting them from operating a commercial fertilizer yard without a use permit; and (2) a September 26, 2008 order that awards attorney fees in the sum of $17,429.10 to the County. Court affirm in part and reverse in part and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Jose Melchor and Natalie Melchor, by and through their guardians ad litem, Martin Melchor and Ramona Melchor, appeal from a judgment entered after the court granted the summary judgment motion of respondent Mercy Medical Center Merced. Appellants contend a triable issue of material fact precluded summary judgment and the court erred in denying their request for a continuance of the motion hearing. Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Mahmoud Ali, appearing in propria persona, does not provide notices of appeal or clearly identify the ruling or rulings he appeals from, making it impossible for us to conduct a meaningful appellate review of his claims. He appears to appeal from two April 9, 2009 minute orders, but raises numerous claims unrelated to them. He barely addresses the orders themselves, thereby waiving any claims regarding them. Therefore, Court affirm.

Defendant Harold Daniel Schultz contracted with a homeowner to remodel a kitchen and a bathroom, and add a room to the house. Defendant left the project uncompleted after receiving significant payments from the homeowner. After a court trial he was convicted of diversion of construction funds (Pen. Code, § 484b)[1] and receiving an excessive down payment (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7159.5, subd. (a)(3)). Imposition of sentence was suspended. Defendant was granted probation and ordered to pay $40,320 in restitution to the victim.
Defendant argues that he was erroneously convicted of diverting construction funds because no evidence was presented that he diverted money received under the contract to another project, which he contends is a requirement of Penal code section 484b. This argument lacks merit and Court affirm the judgment.

Nicolas Rodriguez filed a complaint alleging that Lajoma Corporation had obstructed access to a recorded easement that provided vehicular entry to the rear portion of Rodriguez's property. Lajoma argued that Rodriguez's easement rights had extinguished and that he was equitably estopped from asserting any interest in the easement. After a bench trial, the trial court found that Rodriguez had an express easement, 50 feet in length, along the eastern boundary of Lajoma's property, enjoined the parties from blocking access to the easement, and awarded Rodriguez $41,000 in damages.
Both parties appeal the judgment. Rodriguez contends that the trial court misinterpreted the length of the easement, asserting that his right of passageway extends approximately 100 feet to the rear of his property. Lajoma, in turn, argues that the evidence at trial showed that the easement has been extinguished and that Rodriguez is equitably estopped from asserting his easement rights. Lajoma also argues that Rodriguez failed to introduce any evidence that he suffered damages. court affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Defendant Fredrick Oneal Robinson appeals from the postjudgment order revoking probation and executing a previously stayed five-year state prison sentence. Court affirm.

Edgardo Guevara appeals a judgment following his conviction of corporal injury to a fellow parent (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)),[1] a felony, and child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)), a misdemeanor. The trial court found that he fell within the purview of the Three Strikes law and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 28 years to life. We conclude, among other things, that 1) the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion by not striking one of Guevara's two prior strike convictions, and 2) his third strike life sentence does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. Court affirm.

Jose Ramon Linares appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction for second degree murder, contending his confession should have been suppressed as the product of police coercion. Except for the correction of errors regarding the imposition of the court security fee and court construction penalty, Court affirm.