CA Unpub Decisions

Fernando Barriga Padilla (appellant) appeals his conviction based on a guilty plea to one felony count of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)), one count of child endangerment (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a)), and two special drug weight enhancements (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.4, subd. (b)(1), Pen. Code, 1203.073, subd. (b)(2)). The trial court denied appellants Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to quash the search warrant for his home, and to suppress the evidence against him. Appellant renews his contention that the search warrant for his home lacked the necessary probable cause for issuance. Court affirm.

Laurie Marie Laskey filed in propria persona a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging negligence and other torts against Shiloh Group, LCC (the Shiloh Group). The Shiloh Group demurred to her FAC, and the lower court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Laskey appeals from the order regarding the demurrer. The Shiloh Group requests that we dismiss her appeal for failing to appeal from a judgment or an appealable order.
On January 30, 2008, Laskey filed a complaint for personal injury against the Shiloh Group. She alleged causes of action for general negligence, intentional tort, products liability, and premises liability. She also alleged a cause of action for computer crimes, identity theft, FCC violations, code violations, technical violations, split tunneling, security breach, invasion of privacy, stalking, etc. Laskey asserted that the wiring between the Shiloh Group and her personal property caused a security breach. With regard to her premises liability cause of action, she wrote that she suffered an injury on October 17, 2002, when the Shiloh Groups connection to my personal residence created a security breach which has caused me to lose my means of employment, emotional distress, etc.

Ike Agbasi filed suit against the County of Los Angeles (County), the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), and certain individual defendants, alleging claims arising out of the termination of his employment. Defendants prevailed on all claims before trial, and the trial court awarded attorneys fees of $40,000 to LACOE. Agbasi timely appealed. Court reverse the award of attorneys fees but otherwise affirm.

Defendant claims section 2800.2 creates an impermissible mandatory presumption, the jury should have been given a unanimity instruction, the trial court should have excluded certain opinion evidence, and his sentence is cruel and unusual. Court shall affirm the judgment.

In this dissolution action, Appellant Wendy Lujan (Wendy) challenges the 2008 postjudgment orders of the family court that granted the motion by her former husband, Respondent David Cisneros (David), to modify child custody orders originating in the 2004 stipulated judgment of dissolution between the parties. By agreement, Wendy was awarded custody of the parties' twins, born in 2000, and David was awarded visitation rights. From 2001-2006, Wendy and the children lived off and on in Mexico and in Imperial County. Shortly after the 2004 entry of judgment, extensive litigation on custody issues began and has continued in both California and Mexico, pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA; Fam. Code, 3400 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this code unless noted.)

William G. Crooks appeals from an order extending his commitment to Patton State Hospital (Patton) as an individual found not guilty by reason of insanity. (Pen. Code, 1026.5; all undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He argues that the trial proceedings violated the statute's express guarantee of entitlement to the rights under the federal and state Constitutions for criminal proceedings. ( 1026.5, subd. (b)(7).) Crooks also contends there is insufficient evidence to support the required finding that as a result of a mental disease, defect, or disorder, he has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. Court affirm the order.

Hector L. and Patricia C. (together, the parents) appeal an order continuing juvenile court jurisdiction of their minor children Leslie L. and Hector L., Jr., (together, the minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, subdivision (c). The parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding its continued supervision was necessary to protect the minors. Court affirm the order.

Petitioners and appellants David Masters and Tina Mastramico (David) appeal from the trial courts order sustaining the objections of objector and respondent Joseph Masters (Joseph) to Davids petition for letters of administration regarding the estate of their father, Phillip E. Mastramico, now deceased (Mastramico). Specifically, David argues that trial court erred when it found that it had no jurisdiction to probate Mastramicos holographic will after it determined Mastramicos domicile was in the State of Florida rather than San Bernardino County, California. As discussed below, court conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial courts ruling.

Defendant and appellant Alfonso Carnell Olive appeals following a guilty plea. He seeks a remand for resentencing, because he claims the trial court did not follow the procedural requirements in Penal Code section 1200.

Defendant, along with other members of her gang, robbed a gas station. After pleading guilty, defendant was informed of the sentencing range, but was given no promises as to whether the trial court would strike or impose the gang enhancement.
Defendant had been a gang member since the age of 12. She voluntarily chose the gang life because she did not like everyone in her family being upper class, white-collar. She told the probation officer she could not be out of custody for more than 90 days without getting into trouble, and that she was asked to commit the robbery to help a fellow gang member get money for food and rent because it was known that if she was asked to do something she would do it.

Defendant and appellant D.E. (Mother) appeals from orders terminating her parental rights with respect to three of her children, A.E., S.E., and O.E., pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. She contends: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding she had been provided with reasonable reunification services; and (2) the court erred and deprived her of due process when it terminated her parental rights without making a proper postdispositional finding of parental unfitness. Plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) disputes these contentions and asserts that Mother has waived any argument concerning the courts findings for failing to contest them below. For the reasons that follow, Court affirm the courts orders.

A modification decision.

A jury convicted Susan Gail Pressley of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and of using a scanner to intercept a public safety radio signal with the intent of assisting a criminal offense (Pen. Code, 636.5). Pressley claims the trial court erred in refusing to quash the search warrant that resulted in the charges and in admitting evidence of her prior criminal act and her interviews with the investigating officers. Court reject her contentions and affirm the judgment.

Appellant, Jeffrey Wise, pled guilty to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). On August 28, 2008, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Wise on probation for three years on condition he serve one year in local custody.
On appeal, Wise contends this court should clarify that the offense he pled to is not a serious felony. Court will strike Wises admission that his assault offense is a serious felony. In all other respects, Court will affirm.