CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Pablo Orrostieta appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of first degree murder with the finding that a principal personally used and discharged a firearm which proximately caused great bodily injury or death to the victim. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d), (e)(1).) The jury also found the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A). Defendant was sentenced to prison for a term of 50 years to life. He appeals, contending there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding on the gang allegation and he was prejudiced by the admission of gang evidence and testimony explaining the absence of witnesses. Court affirm.

This is an appeal by the appellant, Tammy Sciotto (hereafter, wife) in a family law case wherein the court granted her petition for legal separation in a 13-year marriage. She and respondent, Frank Sciotto (hereafter, husband) entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) and the case was tried as an uncontested matter. Husband was not represented by an attorney. Judgment of legal separation was signed and filed on May 3, 2006 and notice by the clerk was mailed that day. Nine days later (May 12, 2006), the wife filed for a dissolution of the marriage.
Our review of the relevant Family Code statutes, case law, and the appellate record in this case, convinces us the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting husband relief. Court will therefore affirm the order from which wife has appealed and remand the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff and appellant Christine Dorman appeals from a judgment following the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent State of California Department of Justice (DOJ) and a judgment following the granting of a motion for summary adjudication in favor of defendant and respondent City of La Verne (City) in this action for employment discrimination and retaliation. Dorman worked as an administrative assistant for the Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Crime Task Force (LA Impact). Dorman contends triable issues of fact exist as to the following issues: 1) whether an employment relationship existed between Dorman and the DOJ, either directly, indirectly, or based on the doctrine of respondeat superior; 2) whether an employment relationship existed between Dorman and the City; and 3) whether the City and the DOJ are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress even in the absence an employment relationship. Court conclude neither the City nor the DOJ are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is no evidence that the DOJ exercised control or interfered with respect to Dormans employment, and therefore, Dorman cannot maintain employment-related causes of action against the DOJ. The judgment in favor of the DOJ is affirmed. Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the City was Dormans employer, and therefore, the judgment in favor of the City is reversed.

Appellant Laura Louise Norene (Norene) appeals from an order denying her petition to determine heirship. In denying the petition, the probate court ruled that it was untimely. Court affirm.

The jury convicted defendant Michael Rudolph Camacho of failing to register as a sex offender. (Former Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(A).)[1] Defendant contends on appeal that: (1) his right to due process under the federal and state Constitutions was violated by a 10-month delay between his arrest in another county for a related parole violation and the filing of this case in Los Angeles County for a section 290 violation; (2) the trial court should have declared a mistrial on its own motion for juror misconduct or, alternatively, his attorney was ineffective in addressing the misconduct issue; and (3) his pretrial statement elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 was inadmissible. Court affirm the judgment.

Kelvin Bacon appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of making a criminal threat in violation of Penal Code section 422. Defendant was sentenced to 16 months in state prison and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Court affirm.

J.F. appeals from the order of wardship entered following his admission that he committed grand theft of an automobile (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (d)(1)). The minor was placed home on probation and contends that some of the conditions of his probation and an order regarding his maximum period of confinement are invalid. Court affirm the order of wardship and order the juvenile court to strike reference to the minors the maximum period of confinement.

Emmanuel Galvan appeals the judgment (order revoking probation) entered following his plea of no contest to the use of false documents to conceal his true citizenship or resident alien status. (Pen. Code, 114.) Court affirm the order.

This is an appeal by a husband from a restraining order issued in favor of his wife and their children. From our examination of the appellate record, it did not appear that the husbands notice of appeal was timely filed. We therefore directed the attorneys who represent the parties to appear at the oral argument scheduled for this case and be prepared to discuss only the issue of the timeliness of the appeal. Court advised them that if we ultimately determined that the appeal was timely filed, the substantive issues raised by the parties in their appellate briefs would be addressed at oral argument on a future date, but if we determined the appeal was not timely, it would be dismissed. At oral argument husbands attorney conceded that the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300 et seq.),[1]B.C., the mother of the minor children C.O., A.C., and K.C., (Mother, C.O., A.C., and K.C., respectively), appeals from an order that (1) terminated the home of parent orders that allowed A.C. and K.C. to remain in her care, and (2) removed the minors from her custody and placed them in foster care. A.C. and K.C. have also appealed from that order. The appellants challenge the jurisdiction and disposition determinations made by the dependency court in its determination of a section 387 supplemental petition. Court find that substantial evidence supports the trial courts determinations, and that the courts failure to make certain findings is harmless error. Court therefore affirm the order from which Mother and the minors have appealed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the prosecution, defendant and appellant Randall Scott Holden entered no contest pleas to two counts of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), and one count of violating Penal Code section 286, subdivision (j). He was sentenced to the agreed upon term of 12 years in state prison. The judgment is affirmed.

Francisco Pineda appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to count 1, committing a lewd act with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) and no contest pleas to two additional counts of the same charge, counts 2 and 3. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant was sentenced to prison for a total of nine years, composed of the middle term of six years on count 1, a consecutive low term of three years on count 2, and a concurrent middle term of six years on count 3. Two additional counts of lewd conduct in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) were dismissed pursuant to the negotiated plea. The judgment is affirmed.

J.G. (father) appeals an order declaring his three children, ages nine, eight and four years, dependents of the juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300, subds. (b), (d), (j).) Court reject J.G.s assignments of error and affirm the findings.

Robert Dunstan Dickenson IV appeals a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded nolo contendere to possession of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of Vicodin, driving under the influence of a controlled substance, possession of narcotics paraphernalia, and being under the influence of methamphetamine, with an admission that he served a prior prison term. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a), 11550, subd. (a) [counts 1 & 5]; Bus. & Prof. Code, 4060, 4140 [counts 2 & 4]; Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a) [count 3]; Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) Court conclude that the trial court properly imposed an upper-term sentence, and affirm.