Richard D. Huffman sr

The case involved the conviction of Martin Felipe Miramontes on multiple counts of sexual offenses against children, including sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts on a child, use of harmful matter to seduce a minor, and possession of child pornography, along with related enhancements for multiple victims and substantial sexual conduct. Miramontes appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged sexual offenses from 2003 under Evidence Code section 1108 over his section 352 objections and that the statute and related jury instructions violated his due process rights. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and 146-year-to-life sentence, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the evidence after balancing its probative value against prejudice and that section 1108 and CALCRIM No. 1191 did not infringe on due process protections as established by prior precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Anthony Aranda's appeal after his convictions for voluntary manslaughter and active participation in a criminal street gang stemming from a fatal shooting during a fight at a house party attended by rival gang members. The appellate court reversed the gang participation conviction because the trial court omitted the standard CALJIC No. 2.90 instruction on the prosecution's burden of proof and reasonable doubt, and other instructions did not cure the omission for that count, rendering the error prejudicial. It affirmed the manslaughter conviction on the ground that instructions given for murder and lesser included offenses adequately conveyed the reasonable doubt standard. The court also upheld the denial of use immunity for a defense witness, finding the proposed testimony duplicative of the defendant's own account and thus neither clearly exculpatory nor essential.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Karl Joseph Russell, who was convicted after a court trial of first degree murder and other offenses including residential burglary, vehicle theft, and evading an officer causing death. The court sentenced him to 26 years to life, with the murder conviction based on the felony-murder rule applied to the burglary via the escape rule. Russell appealed only the murder conviction, arguing that the escape rule should not extend to burglary flight, that the evidence failed to show the death occurred during an escape from burglary, and that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the felony-murder escape rule applies to burglary and that the evidence showed the fatal crash occurred as part of one continuous transaction before Russell reached a place of temporary safety. The court also rejected the cruel and unusual punishment claim.

criminal law

This case involved Artis Earl Gorham's appeal from the denial of his motions to set aside a 1998 default judgment for child support and paternity obtained by the County of San Diego Department of Child Support Services, and to dismiss the action. Gorham argued that the judgment was void because he was never properly served with the summons and complaint, as falsely represented in the process server's proof of service, meaning the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and that the case should be dismissed for failure to serve within three years under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.210 and 583.250. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, holding that Gorham's delay in seeking relief under statutory provisions did not preclude equitable relief where the court had never acquired fundamental personal jurisdiction due to the lack of valid service. The court directed the trial court to dismiss the action on that basis.

family lawprocedure

In People v. Busser, the defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor hit and run and felony insurance fraud after lying to his insurer GEICO about the circumstances of a collision, leading the trial court to order him to pay restitution for vehicle repair costs that GEICO had covered for both parties involved. The Court of Appeal reversed the restitution order as to the repair costs, though it upheld the award for GEICO's investigation expenses. The core reasoning was that under Penal Code section 1202.4 and the rule from People v. Crow, the repair payments did not qualify as losses caused by the criminal misrepresentation, since GEICO would have been contractually obligated to pay the same amounts if Busser had told the truth from the outset. The court noted that GEICO's potential civil remedies, such as contract rescission, were separate from criminal restitution requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

Walter Wolf, a former director of San Elijo Ranch, Inc. (SERI) and 20 percent shareholder of its parent company CDS Devco, petitioned for a writ of mandate to enforce inspection rights over SERI's corporate records under Corporations Code section 1602 after being notified he would not be reelected to the board. The defendants demurred on the ground that Wolf lacked standing as a non-director. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the resulting judgment of dismissal. The court held that the absolute inspection rights in section 1602 belong only to current directors and that Wolf had not pleaded facts sufficient to support any equitable exception or extension of those rights to a former director.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a juvenile, Damian M., who was arrested at the U.S.-Mexico border with over 10 pounds of marijuana hidden in his car and admitted to possessing marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360(a). Although statutorily eligible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) and supported by the probation officer's recommendation, the juvenile court denied the request based on the minor's demonstrated criminal sophistication, including multiple preparatory steps, use of a sham vehicle, and involvement with organized smugglers, opting instead for formal probation with the possibility of dismissal upon successful completion. On appeal, Damian challenged both the DEJ denial and a probation condition requiring his parents to participate in his school programs. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying DEJ after independently weighing the relevant statutory factors and that the probation condition was a valid measure to support rehabilitation without improperly exposing the minor to sanctions for others' conduct.

criminal law

In People v. Roberts, defendants Jamal Roosevelt Roberts III and Milton Allen Pettis were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of the Deep Valley Crips gang, based on evidence from a narcotics investigation that included wiretap surveillance of their phones amid ongoing violence with the rival Bloods gang. The defendants appealed, arguing that the wiretap evidence should have been suppressed as obtained in violation of the Presley-Felando-Eaves Wiretap Act and the Fourth Amendment, along with errors in admitting gang evidence, denying separate trials, and other issues. The Court of Appeal held that the wiretaps were legally authorized and properly minimized, and while the state failed to timely file required progress reports under section 629.60 and seek court approval for nontargeted communications under section 629.82, these procedural violations were harmless and did not require suppression of the evidence. The court also rejected claims regarding the vehicle stop, gang expert testimony, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sufficiency of the evidence. The judgments were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 after a class action settlement between retired City employee William McGuigan and the City of San Diego regarding underfunding of the City's retirement system. McGuigan sought additional fees from the City for work defending the settlement on appeal against third-party objectors, but the trial court denied the motion. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the City was not an "opposing party" under the statute because the parties were aligned in interest as fellow respondents defending the approved settlement. The reasoning focused on the statutory text limiting fee awards to opposing parties and the parties' cooperative posture in the appeal, distinguishing cases where parties had adverse interests.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involved an appeal from the dismissal of a cross-complaint in which a borrower sought to bring a class action under California's unfair competition law (UCL) against creditors pursuing deficiency judgments after repossessing and selling a vehicle. The borrower alleged that the creditors' practice of seeking such judgments was unlawful because the required notices of intent to dispose of the vehicle were defective under the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act. The trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend, finding the UCL claims time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed, holding that the borrower should be allowed to amend the complaint to allege facts supporting a delayed accrual of the cause of action, such as when the demand for deficiency payment was made.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Michelle Thompson entered a guilty plea to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and driving under the influence causing injury, while admitting prior strike and serious felony convictions, in exchange for dismissal of other charges. The trial court orally pronounced a sentence of 27 years eight months, but the minute order and abstract of judgment correctly stated 26 years four months, consistent with the plea form's maximum. On appeal, the court ruled that the written records prevail over the reporter's transcript due to a miscalculation of one-third the middle term for the DUI count under the three strikes law, resulting in the proper aggregate of 26 years four months, and upheld consecutive sentences for the two counts because they involved separate victims under People v. McFarland.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a juvenile dependency proceeding in which the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency removed two young children from their mother's custody due to her drug-related arrest and substance abuse history, later locating and involving their father Joseph S. after he had been absent from the proceedings. Joseph, who was initially identified as the children's presumed or biological father, appeared in court while in custody, received paternity confirmation, and participated in some visits but did not seek custody or services earlier; the juvenile court made a detriment finding, terminated reunification services, denied his section 388 modification petition without a full hearing, and terminated his parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing to allow adoption by relatives. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the orders, holding that substantial evidence supported the detriment finding and termination decision given the children's stable placement and adoptability, Joseph's limited prior involvement, and his failure to demonstrate changed circumstances warranting further services or delay. The court noted that Joseph had consented to the disposition at the section 387 hearing and that due process claims were forfeited or meritless since reunification services are not a constitutional right for noncustodial parents in this context.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a juvenile court could impose a Fourth Amendment waiver as a condition of informal supervision for a minor under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 654 and 654.2. Derick B., a 17-year-old facing misdemeanor charges related to driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, was granted informal supervision but objected to the added waiver condition. The juvenile court ruled it had authority to impose the waiver given the circumstances involving alcohol and marijuana. The appellate court held that the juvenile court lacked such authority, granting Derick's petition for a writ of prohibition. The reasoning centered on the statutory language and purpose of sections 654 and 654.2 as a pre-plea diversion program to avoid formal juvenile proceedings, which does not authorize the waiver unlike other specific statutory schemes that explicitly require it.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved an appeal by attorney Linda Paquette from a probate court order imposing $1,000 in monetary sanctions payable to the court and $2,587.50 in attorney fees payable to the court-appointed attorney for proposed conservatee Bibiano Becerra. The sanctions stemmed from Paquette's direct contacts with the conservatee after the appointed attorney had requested all communications go through her, which the probate court found violated California Rules of Professional Conduct rule 2-100(A). The Court of Appeal reversed the orders, holding that the awards lacked statutory support under Code of Civil Procedure sections 177.5 and 575.2 because there was no proven violation of a lawful court order and the court failed to follow proper notice procedures for sanctions.

procedurefamily law

In People v. Buskirk, a jury convicted the defendant of second degree robbery after he was identified fleeing the scene in a vehicle linked to an accomplice, and he admitted a prior prison term enhancement, resulting in a six-year sentence. Buskirk appealed, claiming the trial court should have suppressed his post-arrest statements because he invoked his right to counsel during a parole violation detention and subsequent station interviews in violation of Miranda, that the jury should have been instructed an accomplice testified as a matter of law, and that he was not properly advised of his rights before admitting the prior. The court examined the record of the encounters, including that no questioning occurred during the initial detention and that the defendant did not make a clear and unequivocal request for counsel during the interviews, and concluded the statements were properly admitted. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge by industry associations to a precedential decision by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that held a courier service liable for unemployment insurance contributions and penalties after it reclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The associations sought declaratory relief to invalidate the Board's decision as contrary to law, arguing it misapplied the standards for determining employment status under the Unemployment Insurance Code. The trial court denied relief, and the Court of Appeal affirmed on de novo review, concluding that the Board correctly applied the common law control test and secondary factors from cases like Borello, Empire Star, and Tieberg to assess whether the drivers were employees. The court upheld the precedential effect of the decision, finding it consistent with established authority interpreting section 621(b) for unemployment tax purposes.

labor & employmenttaxesbusiness & regulatory

In People v. Mirenda, the case involved 1981 charges of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon against Gregory Louis Mirenda for shooting his roommate, with a felony complaint filed that year but no prosecution until 2007 after a 26-year delay. Mirenda had been arrested in Pennsylvania in 1982, waived extradition, but was released when prosecutors declined to pursue the case due to the unavailable victim; the warrant was later changed to California-only, and proceedings resumed only after Mirenda inquired about it in 2007. The trial court granted Mirenda's pretrial motion to dismiss based on prejudicial preaccusation delay, and the appellate court affirmed, finding the unjustified delay after 1982 violated his speedy trial rights under the California Constitution due to lost evidence, deceased witnesses, and faded memories that prevented a fair defense. The court also held that deciding the motion before trial was within the trial court's discretion given the evident prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The underlying case involved plaintiffs RiverWatch, the Pala Band of Mission Indians, and the City of Oceanside seeking to overturn approvals by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health for a privately owned landfill project, alleging violations of CEQA, Proposition C, and county plans. After partial success in the trial court on CEQA claims, the trial court awarded attorney fees to RiverWatch and the Pala Band under the private attorney general statute. On appeal by the defendants, the Court of Appeal affirmed the fee award, finding no abuse of discretion because the litigation enforced important public interests related to environmental review, the plaintiffs achieved significant success, and the trial court appropriately reduced the requested fees.

environmentprocedure

This case involved the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filing a petition to declare seven-month-old Cole C. a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j), based on allegations that his father Mark had physically and sexually abused Cole's half-sisters Chloe and Ella. Mark appealed the juvenile court's orders declaring Cole a dependent and removing him from Mark's custody, arguing errors in applying the psychotherapist-patient privilege to therapy sessions involving the sisters, a due process violation from the sequencing of hearings, and insufficient evidence for the jurisdictional and dispositional findings. The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders, holding that the privilege was properly asserted by the minors' counsel, that Mark was not denied a fair opportunity to present evidence on Cole's petition, and that substantial evidence supported the findings of risk to Cole and the lack of reasonable alternatives to removal. The court noted Mark's admitted disciplinary methods, the sisters' disclosures, and Mark's failure to accept services or acknowledge the issues as key to the outcome.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a six-year-old student, Eric M., who was struck by a car after boarding and then immediately leaving his school bus on campus, telling the driver he saw his father's car, and then walking toward another location; his parents had sued the Cajon Valley Union School District for negligence in supervising the dismissal and bus process under its transportation safety plan. The trial court granted the district's motion for summary judgment, finding no duty owed under Education Code section 44808 because the injury occurred off campus after school hours. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the district had undertaken to provide transportation and thus owed a duty of reasonable care while the student was or should have been under its immediate supervision, creating triable issues of fact about whether that duty was fulfilled when the bus driver allowed Eric to exit without further verification or oversight.

torts & liabilityprocedure