CA Unpub Decisions

R.C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order denying reunification services as to minor B.C. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subds. (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), (c).) Mother does not contest the juvenile court’s finding that statutory grounds existed to justify bypassing services, but contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by finding that it would not be in the minor’s best interest to reunify with mother. Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm the juvenile court order.

A jury convicted defendant Brian Weissinger of voluntary manslaughter, and the trial court sentenced him to 11 years in state prison. Defendant now contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the limited use of mental disability evidence. But because he did not object in the trial court, his contention is forfeited. We will affirm the judgment.

Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at the residence of defendant Tannere Michael Martinisko and obtained evidence of the sale and cultivation of marijuana. The Trinity County Superior Court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence.
Defendant now seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order, contending (1) the affidavit in support of the warrant did not establish probable cause to search his home, (2) the good faith exception does not apply, and (3) the affiant substantially misled the magistrate.
We will deny the petition for writ of mandate. The affidavit provided sufficient evidence from which the magistrate could find probable cause to search defendant’s home, and the affiant did not mislead the magistrate.

Defendant Marlon Palmer appeals his conviction for second degree murder on two grounds. First, he argues the trial court erred by excluding third-party culpability evidence. Second, defendant argues the prosecutor committed Griffin error by suggesting during his rebuttal argument that defendant’s failure to testify indicated guilt. We disagree with both arguments and affirm.

Defendant Michael Neves and plaintiff Susan D. Mitchell entered into a stipulated judgment in which Neves promised to transfer property to Mitchell, and Mitchell agreed to pay Neves or lose possession of the property. A dispute arose as to whether Mitchell made the payment. Both parties filed motions to enforce the stipulated judgment. The court granted Mitchell’s motion, finding she complied with the agreement between the parties. Neves appeals, arguing the court erred in granting the motion. We shall affirm the judgment.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, and considered defendant’s supplemental brief, the amicus curiae brief of the El Dorado County Public Defender’s Office and our high court’s opinion in People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page), we affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing pursuant Penal Code section 1170.18 without prejudice to consideration of a new petition providing evidence of his eligibility.

This case involves the “Great Dissolution” legislation freezing operations of community redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and then dissolving them and winding-up their affairs. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 34161-34169.5 [Part 1.8 freeze component], and Health & Saf. Code, §§ 34170-34191.6 [Part 1.85 dissolution component]; unless otherwise stated, statutory section references that follow are to the Health and Safety Code.)

This case concerns a boundary dispute between appellant Steve Meidinger (Meidinger) and respondents Mark David Davis and Kristina Lynne Davis (collectively the Davises). Meidinger argues the trial court erred in settling the disputed boundary according to the agreed boundary doctrine because there had been no uncertainty regarding the location of the boundary line. The Davises counter that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of uncertainty. The Davises have moved for sanctions against Meidinger and his counsel, arguing this appeal indisputably lacks merit and was brought to harass the Davises.
We affirm the judgment and deny the Davises’s motion for sanctions.

Anthony Castillo-Pulido pled guilty to possession of cocaine with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1) after the superior court affirmed the magistrate’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, §§ 995, 1538.5, subds. (a)(1)(A), (f) & (i)). He was convicted and placed on formal probation for five years, including 210 days in the county jail. Castillo-Pulido contends police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. We affirm.

G.J. (mother) appeals from a June 29, 2017 order terminating her parental rights to Jazmine J. (born in December 2011). Jazmine’s father is not a party to this appeal. We find no error, and thus we affirm.

Plaintiffs Alice and John Medina appeal the trial court’s judgment sustaining defendants Allen and Kelly Smudde’s demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm because plaintiffs failed to adequately brief this court on how their causes of action were viable.

Plaintiff De Wana Ballou appeals from an order of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend defendant eBay Inc.’s demurrer to the first amended complaint. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In July 2016, Ballou, acting in propria persona, filed this action against eBay, asserting causes of action for negligence, strict liability, fraud and libel. In December 2016, the trial court sustained eBay’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend as to all causes of action except the negligence cause of action, to which the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Ballou did not include the original complaint in her Appellant’s Appendix, and she does not challenge on appeal the trial court’s dismissal of her causes of action for strict liability, fraud and libel.

Plaintiff Martha L. Welborne (Welborne) appeals the February 21, 2017 judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained respondent SFE Investment Counsel, Inc.’s (SFEIC) demurrer to Welborne’s second amended complaint without leave to amend. Welborne contends she sufficiently pleaded that SFEIC had aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by Stern Fisher Edwards, Inc. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.

The trial court found that defendant Joseff James Wright violated probation in case No. KA100291, and sentenced him to a county jail term of four years. On appeal, defendant contends the admission of hearsay evidence at his probation revocation hearing violated his due process right to confrontation and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel’s failure to object. Defendant reiterates his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which we agreed to consider concurrently with this appeal. We affirm.