CA Unpub Decisions

Carlos Leyva pleaded guilty to transporting methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine for sale, and admitted possessing more than 10 kilograms of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11379, subd. (a), 11370.4, subd. (b)(3).) The court imposed a 13-year sentence, with five years of actual custody and eight years of supervised release.
Leyva contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the methamphetamine and other evidence found during a traffic stop. Leyva claims the law enforcement officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and the officer's continued detention and search violated Leyva's Fourth Amendment rights. Leyva also contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the constitutionality of the automobile search. We reject these contentions and affirm.

The mother, Lidia P., has appealed from the dispositional
order in a dependency case. The Department of Children and
Family Services has moved to dismiss the mother’s appeal. We
agree the appeal is moot and order dismissal.

The mother, Lidia P., has appealed from the dispositional
order in a dependency case. The Department of Children and
Family Services has moved to dismiss the mother’s appeal. We
agree the appeal is moot and order dismissal.

A jury convicted defendants and appellants Ryan Morrison and Terry Hewitt (sometimes collectively defendants) of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 2) and possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count 3). As to count 1, the jury further found that the burglary was of an inhabited dwelling house (Pen. Code, § 460) and that a person other than an accomplice was present during its commission (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)).

Defendant Joseph Olivares pleaded no contest to grand theft of personal property over $950. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. We affirm the judgment.

The mother, Beatriz C., has appealed from the dispositional
order in a dependency case. The Department of Children and
Family Services has moved to dismiss the mother’s appeal. We
agree the appeal is moot and order dismissal.

Casey C. (father) appeals from jurisdictional findings
declaring his three children dependents under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),
1 and the
disposition order removing them from his custody. Father
also appeals the court’s decision to deny his request to
represent himself. We reverse the jurisdictional finding
based on allegations concerning father’s mental health
because that finding is not supported by substantial
evidence. We dismiss as nonjusticiable the portion of
father’s appeal challenging the court’s other jurisdictional
findings against him. We affirm the order removing the
children from parental custody under section 361,

In 1978, retired Presiding Justice Daniel M. Hanlon, then a Judge of the San Francisco Superior Court, presided at the trial at which a jury found Richard Alan London guilty of two counts of first degree murder and one count of being a
past-convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Sixteen months was added to London’s sentence after he admitted a criminal charge of possessing marijuana in prison in 1996.
In April 2014, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) declined to set a date for London’s release from state prison. The Board had before it a Comprehensive Risk Assessment by a psychologist who concluded: “Mr. London represents a moderate or average risk of violence. . . . While incarcerated, he has received a variety of RVRs [Rule Violation Reviews] . . . , including a 2011 RVR for Conspiracy to Introduce a Controlled Substance for Purpose of Distribution. The 2011 RVR does not represent Mr. London’s first time being found guilty of involvement in such activity (as

This appeal is an outgrowth of the same proceedings that
resulted in our recent decision in Casas v. City of Baldwin Park,
et al. (Mar. 28, 2017, B270313) [nonpub. opn.] (Casas I).1
As
noted in that opinion, the trial court awarded Paul Cook, counsel
for plaintiff Julian Casas, nearly $40,000 in attorney fees for
work that led to the issuance of a writ of mandate compelling the
City of Baldwin Park (the City) to produce records pursuant to
the California Public Records Act (CPRA). We now consider
Casas’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to award
additional attorney fees for work Cook performed in filing
motions and an ex parte application to compel compliance with
the writ the court issued.

IV Solutions, Inc. (appellant) appeals from a judgment
entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to appellant’s
First Amended Complaint (FAC) in this action. The FAC alleged
causes of action for breach of written contract; breach of implied
contract; intentional and negligent misrepresentation; and open
book account against respondents Health Net of California, Inc.
(Health Net); Golden Empire Managed Care, a Medical Group,
Inc. (GEMCare); and Managed Care Systems, L.P. (Managed
Care) (collectively respondents).1

Angel Camacho was convicted by jury of having made a criminal threat. The charges arose out of a domestic dispute between Camacho and his daughter’s mother, Nicole Hernandez. At the scene of the crime, Hernandez told the investigating officer that Camacho had, among other acts, threatened her life, and that she was afraid she was going to be killed. At trial, Hernandez testified she fabricated the whole incident, accepted total responsibility for the confrontation between the two, and claimed she was never in fear that evening.
Camacho argues the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury with the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threat. We conclude the evidence was insufficient to support the instruction, and even had the trial court erred, Camacho did not suffer any prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Yacov Avila appeals from a restraining order issued
pursuant to California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam.
Code, § 6200 et seq.) (the DVPA).
1 He contends the affidavit and
testimony of the petitioner, Leah Rosenberg, did not constitute
reasonable proof of abuse under the DVPA because Rosenberg
was, in Avila’s assessment, “simply not credible.” We conclude
the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings
were reasonable in view of the evidence presented. We affirm.

Current and former employees of an ambulance service company sued their employer, alleging that its meal and rest period policies violate California law. Their complaint alleges claims on behalf of a proposed class as well as non-class claims concerning those same meal and rest period policies under Labor Code section 2698 et seq., the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).
Before us is plaintiffs’ appeal of the trial court’s denial of their motion for class certification. The appeal raises two issues. First, is the order denying class certification appealable under the “death knell” doctrine, where plaintiffs’ PAGA claims remain pending? Second, did the trial court err in denying class certification? We will exercise our discretion to treat the appeal as a writ petition, and therefore we need not decide the first question. We conclude that the trial court’s denial of class certification rests in part on an incorrect legal assumption about the nature of res

Plaintiff and appellant Joe Raseknia (Raseknia) appeals
from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants and
respondents the County of Los Angeles (the County) and
Francine Jimenez (Jimenez)1 in this action for discrimination
based on age, race, ethnic origin, religion, and disability,
retaliation, harassment, failure to prevent discrimination, and
failure to accommodate. We affirm the judgment.