CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant the People of the State of California appeals from a dismissal following the granting of a motion to suppress filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 by defendant and respondent Jonas Washington. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in suppressing both defendants statement that he had some crystal and the methamphetamine recovered from defendants pocket. Conceding that defendant was in custody at the time he was questioned and that he did not receive the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda), appellant asserts that all suppressed evidence was admissible under the officer safety exception to Miranda. Alternatively, appellant argues that the methamphetamine was admissible as the fruit of an unwarned but voluntary statement. Court reverse. The officers custodial interrogation was not investigatory in nature and was permissible by the officer safety exception to the Miranda rule. Therefore, both the statement and the methamphetamine itself should not have been suppressed.

Louis A. Scott (Scott) appeals the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to two counts of resisting a police officer in the performance of his or her duties (Pen. Code, 69), possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), being a felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)), unlawfully possessing ammunition ( 12316, subd. (b)(1)), and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Scott to a total term of 16 months in state prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Reena B. has four children, each by a different father. Four-year-old Steven B. and his infant brother, Isaac, were removed from her custody due to her drug use and incarceration which rendered her unable to supervise or care for them. Reena B., in pro. per., seeks extraordinary writ review of an order of the juvenile court setting the matter for a hearing terminating parental rights and establishing adoption as a permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.)

A jury found defendant James Edward Caldwell guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury, and driving under the influence with .08 percent blood alcohol with injury. As to the manslaughter count, the jury found true the allegation that defendant proximately caused great bodily injury to three passengers in the car he was driving. Defendant admitted nine prior serious felony convictions. After denying defendants Romero motion, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 32 years to life in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the court committed prejudicial error or abused its discretion in denying his Faretta[2]motion; and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion. Finding no merit in these contentions, Court affirm.

Miguel Aguirre Gutierrez (appellant) appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of attempted first degree murder. (Pen. Code, 664, 187.) The jury also found true the allegations that appellant used and discharged a firearm during the commission of the offense. (Id. at 12022.53, subds. (b), (c).) He contends that his conviction must be reversed because his trial counsel failed to move to suppress evidence and to present expert testimony on his alcoholism, and committed other evidentiary errors. Assuming his counsels conduct fell below the standard of care required, the record on appeal is insufficient to sustain appellants burden to show that he was prejudiced by counsels alleged misfeasance. Therefore, Court affirm.

After four year old Alexis Zimmerman died while in his care, a jury found Aaron Heredia guilty of second degree murder and assault on a child causing death. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 273ab.) He was sentenced to prison for an indeterminate term of 25 years to life. Heredia disputes the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction and raises several claims of legal error. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Carl E. Perkins appeals from a judgment convicting him of robbery and sentencing him to 25 years in state prison. Defendant does not challenge his conviction, but contends that the trial court erred in imposing the aggravated term on his robbery conviction. court affirm the judgment.

Codefendants Douglas Conerly, Clarence Webster, and Kevin Jones appeal from judgments entered following a joint jury trial convicting them of three counts of second degree robbery among other things and sentencing Jones and Conerly to 20 years and Webster to 17 years in state prison. Defendants attack their judgments on numerous grounds, only one of which is meritorious. As the Attorney General acknowledges, defendants were improperly convicted of receiving the property they stole during the robberies for which they were convicted. Accordingly, Court vacate defendants convictions for receiving stolen property and affirm the judgments in all other respects.

In this wrongful termination action, Delmont Waqia (Waqia) appeals following a jury verdict in favor of his former employer, the City of Oakland (the City). Waqia was terminated from the Oakland Fire Department (OFD) after he failed to report for work, following an extended period of paid administrative leave. Rather than reporting to work as ordered, Waqia went on a pilgrimage to Mecca. Waqia filed an action against the OFD and the City (collectively the City), alleging religious and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation. The trial court granted summary adjudication of the religious and gender discrimination causes of action. Trial proceeded solely on the retaliation claim, which was based on the theory that the City fired Waqia because he filed a claim with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). That trial resulted in a defense verdict. On appeal, Waqia contends that the trial court applied the wrong law and misapprehended the facts in summarily adjudicating his religious discrimination claim. He further argues that evidentiary error and attorney misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. Court affirm.

Adele C. (Mother) appeals the termination of reunification services and a permanent plan of long-term foster care for her teenage son, David C. Mother argues that reasonable reunification services were not provided to her, and the evidence was insufficient for the court to conclude there would be a substantial risk of detriment to David if he were returned to Mothers custody. Court conclude that the court correctly terminated services and the courts conclusion that David would be at risk if returned to his Mother is supported by substantial evidence, and affirm.

In July 2006, Patrick Dengler filed a complaint against Doe 1, Doe 2, Doe 3, and Does 4 through 100, inclusive (collectively, Does), for sexual abuse that allegedly occurred when he was a minor. Dengler, who was born in October 1969, asserted that he did not recall the sexual abuse until August 2005. The lower court sustained the demurrer by Doe 1 and Doe 2 against Dengler without leave to amend, finding the lawsuit was time barred. The court rejected Denglers claim of delayed discovery and found that he could not amend the complaint to state a cause of action because his allegation of repressed memory contradicted other allegations in his pleading. Dengler appeals from the judgment dismissing his lawsuit. Court conclude that the allegations are not necessarily inconsistent and therefore reverse the judgment.

In a previous order in a related mandamus proceeding (Pacific Specialty Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (No. A115688)), we held as a matter of law that the pathogenic organisms exclusion in a mobilehome owners policy defeated coverage for damages for the death of a renter caused by exposure to septic waste bacteria. Accordingly, while expressing no opinion about the validity of the exclusion, we directed the superior court to enter an order granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer in the bad faith action prosecuted by appellant landlords and decedents family.[1] Thereafter appellants moved for a new trial, arguing that the applicable exclusions were not conspicuously disclosed and the policy promised coverage that was illusory. Respondent insurer countered, among other points, that there never was coverage to begin with because the bodily injury clause upon which appellants have relied never extended coverage to residents of the mobilehome. This appeal followed denial of appellants new trial motion. Court conclude that the bodily injury clause precludes coverage in the first instance and accordingly affirm the judgment.

Raymond W. appeals from a contested disposition of a probation violation resulting in a commitment to the Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF). The appeal is from a final judgment entered under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and is authorized by section 800. Appellants counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Appellant D.L., a minor, appeals from an order of commitment adjudging her a ward of the court with no termination date, and placing her on probation in a court approved residential group home. Her counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Court's independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.