CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Jose Theodoro Perez of bringing marijuana into or onto the grounds of a penal institution (the Shasta County Alternative Custody Program). The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years with one year in jail.
Defendant now contends the trial court should have dismissed the charge because (1) the Alternative Custody Program facility is not a penal institution, and (2) the prosecution produced insufficient evidence that defendant brought marijuana into or onto the grounds of the facility.
We conclude (1) the Alternative Custody Program facility is a penal institution where inmates are in custody, and (2) the evidence establishes defendant brought marijuana onto the grounds of the penal institution even if he did not take it into a building or fenced area. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

Mother, Veronica P., appeals from the grant of a three-year restraining order entered April 19, 2017, protecting father Jorge T. and S.T., one of her three children, from her. She argues there was no substantial evidence she was a threat to father or S.T. We disagree and affirm.

Fix The City, Inc. (FTC) and Los Angeles Conservancy (LAC) petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate to set aside the approval by the City of Los Angeles (the City) of a real estate development known generally as the 8150 Sunset Boulevard Mixed Use Project (Project) in order to prevent the destruction of a bank building (the Lytton Building) that the parties stipulate has historical significance—acknowledging that the November 2014 Environmental Impact Report found that the destruction of the Lytton Building “would constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA.” The trial court granted the petition in part, allowing the Project to proceed but barring the proposed destruction of the Lytton Building. The trial court denied the balance of the petition.

Defendant Barton Rhett Williams appeals following his conviction by a jury of first degree murder. On appeal, he raises claims of instructional error, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error. He also contends the trial court erred in determining that two out-of-state convictions were strikes for purposes of the Three Strikes Law.

Appellant Laurie Bryant seeks review of an order denying her motion to set aside a stipulated judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Appellant contends that she was entitled to relief from the judgment because it was the product of either mutual mistake or misrepresentation by opposing counsel and a settlement judge, who misled the court into incorrectly applying Family Code section 1102. We will affirm the order.

Amanda Weston initiated this appeal in June 2016 from the trial court’s denial of her request for an order compelling her former husband, Stephen Weston, to pay additional attorney fees on her behalf (Fam. Code, § 2030). She made the fee motion in postjudgment proceedings that followed the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, division of assets, and a trial on reserved issues, including custody of their then 12-year-old daughter. The court had partially granted Amanda’s earlier fee request, requiring Stephen to pay $12,500 of her postjudgment fees, but denied her subsequent request for the $28,000 balance of approximately $41,000 in attorney fees incurred postjudgment.

Amanda Weston initiated this appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting only a portion of her request to compel her former husband, Stephen Weston, to pay her attorney fees (Fam. Code, § 2030) in their dissolution proceedings, after a trial on reserved issues, including custody of their minor daughter. Although the exact figures are difficult to determine, it appears the trial court ordered Stephen to pay approximately 20 percent of the fees Amanda incurred in the dissolution proceedings, and Amanda paid about $216,000 of her remaining attorney fees from her proceeds of the parties’ division of assets under a marital settlement agreement, leaving a substantial unpaid balance. The consolidated appeal involves Amanda’s similar challenge to the trial court’s postjudgment order granting only a portion ($12,500) of her request for attorney fees to pursue the appeal.

Appellant Ladon Ian Green stands convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1); unlawful possession of ammunition in violation of section 30305, subdivision (a)(1) (count 2); and resisting or obstructing a peace officer in the performance of his duties, in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (count 3). A section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement also was found true. Green contends instructional error requires reversal of counts 1 and 2. We disagree and affirm.

At a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Parlier Unified School District (Board) in which special education issues were being considered, plaintiff Alfonso Padron disclosed during the time for public comment that one of the Board members, defendant Stephanie Moreno, has a young child with a disability. Moreno felt that her child’s privacy had been unfairly invaded by plaintiff, and at a subsequent Board meeting she responded by criticizing plaintiff’s public disclosure of her child’s disability. She reiterated her criticisms of plaintiff in a Facebook post. The superintendent, defendant Edward Lucero, replied to Moreno’s Facebook post by opining that plaintiff had behaved like a bully. Plaintiff’s reaction was to file the present lawsuit against Moreno, Lucero and Board member Edgar Pelayo (together, defendants), alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of statute.

Appellant Deborah Luna appeals from an order denying her petition for a writ of mandate against the California State Personnel Board. Respondent, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), is the real party in interest. Appellant contests the decision to terminate her employment as a correctional officer at the Valley State Prison for Women (VSPW). In her administrative proceedings, an administrative law judge concluded appellant was dishonest by providing false information to an investigating officer and to a trial court while proceeding through the aftermath of a domestic violence incident. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Defendant Jose Ceja pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). Subsequently, California voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which among other things established a procedure for specified classes of offenders to have their felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors and be resentenced accordingly. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.)

Juan Antonio Daniel Torres petitions for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his sentence in a 2008 criminal conviction. He was convicted of one count of first degree murder with special circumstances, seven counts of premeditated attempted murder (four of which were reversed on appeal), three counts of shooting a firearm from a motor vehicle, one count of street terrorism, and related enhancements. (People v. Soto (Apr. 6, 2011, C060566) [nonpub.opn.].) He was 14 years old at the time of the offenses. Petitioner’s sentence includes determinate and indeterminate terms that amount to 135 years and eight months to life. He claims his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment considering his age at the time of the crimes. He also makes related claims that he was denied his rights to due process of law and the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing based on the lack of evidence before the sentencing court and its failure to adequately consider petitioner’s backgroun

Defendant Amber Dawn Zucker entered a guilty plea of no contest to child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a); statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated) and an additional count being under the influence of methamphetamine, a misdemeanor was dismissed. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for a term of four years subject to certain terms and conditions including completion of residential treatment, a child abuser’s program at “2nd Step.”

In February or March 2012, 14-year-old T.P. met defendant Benito Gutierrez while she was selling Girl Scout cookies. Defendant, who lived within half a mile of T.P.’s residence, started hiring her to babysit his two children. The two became friends, and T.P. would go defendant’s house just to talk or hang out. Between February and May 2012, defendant kissed T.P. on multiple occasions during the visits and once pulled down her top, exposing her breasts.