CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant, Riverside Sheriffs Association (the RSA) appeals from the trial courts order denying, in part, the RSAs petition for a traditional writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., 1085), against respondents, the County of Riverside and several county officials acting in their official capacities[1](collectively, the County). In its petition, the RSA claimed that the County violated the meet and confer requirement of section 3505 of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (the MMBA) (Gov. Code, 3505 et seq.),[2]by implementing or adopting eight changes to the wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of the County law enforcement unit (LEU) employees, whom the RSA represents in collective bargaining with the County pursuant to the MMBA, without first meeting and conferring with the RSA. Court find no error, and affirm the order denying the petition.

Defendant Santiago Nieto Sanchez was charged with three counts of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 years of age. A jury found defendant guilty of two of the counts. The jury found defendant not guilty as to the third count, but found him guilty of two lesser included offenses (simple assault and simple battery) as to that count. Court otherwise affirm the judgment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the detective to testify regarding his training on the use of ruses and whether ruses produce untruthful confessions. Even if the trial court had erred in admitting such testimony, any such error was harmless.

Plaintiffs Tem Mullenax and Russell Hayes, the trustee of Mullenaxs trust (collectively plaintiff), appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendants Douglas L. Mahaffey and Mahaffey & Associates (collectively defendant). The court ruled plaintiffs complaint for attorney malpractice and related causes of action was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff contends he did not discover the alleged wrongful conduct until a date within the statutory period, or, alternatively, that the statute of limitations was tolled due to delayed discovery and defendants continued representation. Finally he argues defendant is equitably estopped to raise the statute. There is no basis to reverse the judgment and Court affirm.

Defendant Eric Dean Habermehl worked as the finance director for an automobile dealership. The prosecution charged him with two counts of grand theft, presenting evidence that he twice appropriated all or part of a cash deposit the dealership received from a customer as the down payment for a vehicle purchase. The jury convicted defendant on one charge and acquitted him on the second count. The trial court placed defendant on three years probation, a condition of which required him to submit to drug testing as directed by his probation officer or other peace officer.

Appellant and petitioner Sergio Navarro challenges the superior courts denial of his request to invalidate a guilty plea he entered in 1996. He claims the plea should be overturned because at the time he made it, he was unaware of the immigration consequences it would trigger. We find the claim is procedurally barred by Navarros failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Therefore, Court dismiss his claims.

This case concerns a dispute between siblings over the ownership of a house located on Penny Lane in Garden Grove (the Penny Lane property). The house was purchased in 2000. Legal title was originally held by one of the siblingsTrang My Thi Nguyen (Trang) and she resided there. In 2001, Trang conveyed title to one of her brothersThien Vinh Nguyen (Thien), but she continued to reside in the house for several more years. In 2006, Trang sued Thien seeking to quiet title to the Penny Lane property for herself. Trang claimed she paid for the property and merely placed legal title in Thiens name, to be held in trust for her, prior to her divorce to thwart any community property interest her soon-to be ex husband might assert. Thien claimed he paid for the property, let Trang live there out of pity, and originally placed legal title in Trangs name to thwart claims by potential future judgment creditors. He later demanded Trang reconvey legal title when he learned Trangs husband might assert an interest in the property.

A jury convicted Peter Lee Mendoza of second degree murder and found true the related special firearm-use enhancement allegations. On appeal Mendoza contends he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney elected not to present a closing argument on his behalf. Court affirm.

Appellant Percy Matthews II appeals from the judgment entered after the court sustained Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.s demurrer to his First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. Because Matthews, on appeal, has asserted matters which, if properly pled, could support his claims, Court reverse and remand to permit him to file an amended complaint.

Father, R.S., Sr., appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating parental rights. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the courts refusal to apply the exception found in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i).[1] Mother joins in fathers arguments on appeal, making no independent argument, and contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that the children would not benefit from a continued relationship with father. Court find substantial evidence supports the courts findings that father did not maintain regular visitation and contact, and that the children would not benefit from continuing the relationship. Thus, Court conclude the court did not err in rejecting the exception, and Court affirm the order.

Lester Eugene Beasley appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition. (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1). Appellant admitted allegations of having served two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.). The judgment is affirmed.

J.K. (mother) appeals from an order denying her petition for modification of the juvenile court's prior order denying family reunification services. (Welf. & Inst.Code, 388.)[1] She also appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights to her then 18-month-old son, J.K. (minor). ( 366.26.) Mother contends: (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 modification petition; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that minor is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time; and (3) the juvenile court erroneously found inapplicable the exception to the termination of parental rights that applies where "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the minor would benefit from continuing the relationship." ( 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.

Defendant Aron Ezra Wessel shot his sisters ex-boyfriend. A jury convicted him of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a), 189/664, subd. (a); count 1), assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2), child endangerment ( 273a, subd. (a); count 3), criminal threats ( 422; count 4), first degree burglary ( 459; count 5), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 6). As to count 1, the jury found that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. ( 12022.53, subd. (d).) As to all counts, the jury found that he personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). The jury acquitted defendant of four counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling. ( 246; counts 7 through 10). The judgment is modified.

A jury convicted defendant Gilberto Martinez of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2))[1]of Ernesto M. (count three) and Anthony P. (count four), and found true allegations that he personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)) and inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the commission of each count. The jury acquitted defendant of attempted murder ( 187, subd. (a), 664) of Ernesto (count one) and Anthony (count two), and found not true allegations that he committed the assaults for the benefit of the Sureo gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 13 years four months. On appeal, defendant contends his motion to exclude his pretrial statements pursuant to Miranda v.Arizona(1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694] (Miranda) was erroneously denied. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Michael Shannon Wilson entered a no contest plea to two counts of unlawful possession of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b)), and possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). In addition, defendant admitted two prior prison term allegations. The court dismissed a prior strike and sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of three years. Defendants term was increased to five years at sentencing because he had been arrested for a new offense and failed to appear at his original sentencing hearing. (See People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.) On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, and certain costs were incorrectly placed in the abstract. Court affirm and order corrections to the abstract.