George N. Zenovich

The case concerned the Bakersfield City School District’s attempt to dismiss tenured teacher William Henry Powers, Jr., under Education Code sections 44932 and 44933 for alleged unprofessional conduct involving his creative writing program that permitted students to produce and share derogatory stories about classmates. After the Commission on Professional Competence heard the matter over an extended period and issued a decision, the trial court addressed several jurisdictional and procedural challenges raised by the teacher. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s rulings on those issues and remanded for a merits determination under the independent-judgment test. The appellate court held that the commission was not required to make a separate finding of unfitness to teach, that the teacher’s mid-proceeding transfer and the district’s service and panel-member issues did not invalidate the proceedings, that the commission made adequate findings regarding constitutional limits, and that the commission lacked authority to stay the dismissal under the governing statutes.

labor & employmentprocedure

In People v. Ortega, appellants Amado Ochoa, Armando Ochoa, and Adelita Ortega were convicted by a jury of robbery and multiple counts of assault with a deadly weapon, along with firearm enhancements, arising from an armed incident at a bar in Mendota, California, on June 11, 1981. The defendants appealed their convictions, primarily challenging the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to excuse several Hispanic-surnamed prospective jurors, claiming systematic racial exclusion under People v. Wheeler. The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial court properly applied Wheeler procedures by requiring the prosecutor to provide race-neutral justifications, which the court credited as legitimate and unrelated to race, such as prior jury service, gender balance concerns, and views on criminal responsibility. The opinion also noted that two Hispanic jurors remained on the panel and that the victims were Hispanic-surnamed.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved appeals by Toyota of Visalia and Pioneer Dodge from decisions by the Department of Motor Vehicles revoking or suspending their dealer licenses for multiple Vehicle Code violations, followed by further review by the New Motor Vehicle Board. The Board modified the penalties by increasing some and decreasing others, prompting the dealers to petition for a writ of mandamus in superior court, which ruled that the Board lacked authority to enhance penalties. On appeal, the court addressed whether the Board could increase penalties imposed by the Department. The court held that the Board does have such authority under Vehicle Code sections 3054 and 3055, which permit it to amend, modify, or reverse penalties if they are not commensurate with the findings, and that these powers encompass increasing as well as reducing sanctions.

business & regulatory

The case concerns an appeal by parents Ismael C. and Gloria Y. from a Merced County Superior Court order terminating their custody and control over their son David C. under Civil Code section 232, subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(7). The county Department of Human Resources had petitioned to free the child, who had been removed years earlier due to chronic malnutrition and placed in foster care, citing the parents' failure to provide a home, care, or adequate parental relationship despite prior dependency proceedings and a stipulated counseling period. After a hearing, the trial court found the petition's allegations true and granted the termination. The appellate court reviewed the evidence of the parents' history of mental health issues, inconsistent visitation, and unsuccessful reunification efforts, along with procedural requirements such as clear and convincing evidence of detriment to the child.

family lawcivil rights

The case involved Jerry Thomas Mitchell's appeal from a trial court's denial of a Board of Prison Terms motion to recall his seven-year sentence for robbery under Penal Code section 211 with a gun-use enhancement under section 12022.5. The Board had reviewed the sentence under Penal Code section 1170(f), compared it statistically to similar robbery cases, and determined it was disparate due to imposition of the upper term, recommending resentencing to no more than five years. The trial court denied the motion after considering the Board's analysis and the prosecution's arguments regarding unaccounted aggravating factors like leadership and premeditation. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Board's comparison unpersuasive and that no detailed findings were required by the statute.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Luis Urena Rosales's appeal from a first-degree burglary conviction under Penal Code section 459 after a bench trial. Police had entered an apartment without a warrant, observed stolen property matching the victim's description, arrested Rosales, and obtained his palm print at booking, which was used as evidence linking him to the crime scene. The court held that the warrantless entry and arrest were unlawful, that the palm print evidence should have been suppressed, and that the defendant had been denied effective assistance of counsel at the preliminary hearing regarding a suppression motion under Penal Code section 1538.5. It further reasoned that the trial court could not simply order new fingerprinting without an independent probable cause determination, as that would undermine the right to counsel. The judgment was therefore reversed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Woods v. Superior Court, a wife petitioned for a writ of mandate to disqualify her husband's counsel from the dissolution proceedings, alleging that the attorney had long represented the family corporation—a key disputed asset—and had received confidential information from her during prior interactions including will drafting and business discussions. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the declarations did not show the attorney had acquired information injurious to the wife. The Court of Appeal granted the writ and ordered disqualification, reasoning that an attorney representing an ongoing family corporation cannot represent one spouse against the other in a dissolution action without informed written consent, as the possibility of using prior confidences or the appearance of impropriety triggers the ethical prohibition under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court emphasized that actual disclosure of confidences need not be proven and that the attorney should have declined representation of either party.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Adams' conviction for two counts of forgery after he was accused of cashing checks taken from his stepfather's truck, with the prosecution relying heavily on testimony from Steve Wilson, who was on juvenile probation at the time of the events. Adams appealed, arguing that the trial court violated his rights by barring cross-examination of Wilson about his probation status to show possible bias and by allowing impeachment with Adams' prior burglary conviction. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the denial of cross-examination infringed on the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights as established in Davis v. Alaska, since Wilson's probationary status was relevant to potential motive to cooperate with authorities. The court further ruled that, on retrial under pre-Proposition 8 standards, the prosecution must demonstrate that the prior burglary conviction was theft-related to be admissible for impeachment.

criminal lawprocedure

In this guardianship proceeding, the maternal grandparents sought custody of Claralyn and attempted to collaterally challenge the paternity of Gary S., who had stipulated to being the child's father in two prior county actions for child support and public assistance reimbursement. The trial court granted the grandparents temporary custody based on the parents' unfitness but ruled that res judicata from the earlier paternity judgments barred relitigation of parentage, despite blood test results excluding Gary as the biological father. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the prior judgments were conclusive and that the established parent-child relationship and finality of paternity determinations outweighed the grandparents' challenge, as they were not parties to the earlier actions. The majority emphasized that the child's identification of Gary as her father and the parties' prior representations supported maintaining the status quo over biological evidence. A dissent argued that the grandparents should be allowed to litigate paternity in the child's best interests.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned William T. Ames's appeal from a superior court order denying his petition for a writ of mandate to compel the Tulare County Board of Retirement to reclassify him as a "safety member" in the county employees' retirement system. Ames, a correctional officer II at a minimum- and medium-security facility, argued that his principal duties supervising adult inmates, maintaining institutional security, investigating incidents, and performing related tasks qualified as "active law enforcement" under Government Code section 31469.3, subdivision (b). The trial court found he had not made that showing, and the Court of Appeal reviewed the job specifications, facility operations, and precedents such as Crumpler v. Board of Administration to determine whether the duties met the statutory definition of active law enforcement involving investigation, suppression of crime, or arrest and detention of criminals.

labor & employmentcriminal law

This case concerned a divorce proceeding in which the parties stipulated in 1980 to divide the husband's military retirement pension as community property, with the wife receiving 46 percent. The trial court later granted the husband's motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to set aside that portion of the judgment, anticipating a change in law from the U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in McCarty v. McCarty. After McCarty held that military pensions were not divisible as community property, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, which restored the pre-McCarty rule allowing division according to state law. The appellate court reversed, holding that the anticipated change from the certiorari grant did not justify relief from the stipulation and that the new federal statute rendered the McCarty issue moot, so the original division should be reinstated.

family lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved Thomas Talkington, who was serving a jail term as a condition of probation and was found to have violated probation by possessing a homemade firearm in his cell, contrary to Penal Code section 4574. The court affirmed the violation finding, determining that the rolled paper tube containing matchheads constituted a firearm under the statute despite not being fired or having projectiles present. The reasoning centered on the legislative intent to prohibit possession of any items capable of inflicting harm in jails to ensure safety, emphasizing the potential danger rather than actual operability or use, consistent with prior case law rejecting inoperability defenses.

criminal lawguns

This case involved an appeal by Don Carmon Albritton from his conviction on charges of receiving stolen property after he pled guilty; the sole issue was the validity of the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search. The search warrant authorized a search of Albritton's premises for narcotics and related items but did not authorize a search for stolen property, and the box for stolen property on the warrant form was unchecked. During execution of the warrant by narcotics officers, an auto theft detective who accompanied them deliberately searched the garage and rear area for stolen vehicles based on his prior knowledge of Albritton, discovered multiple vehicles with altered or checked serial numbers that came back as stolen, and led to the seizure of evidence used in the charges. The court held that the trial court erred in denying the suppression motion because the detective's search was not inadvertent but instead used the narcotics warrant as a pretext for an exploratory search for stolen vehicles, rendering the plain view doctrine inapplicable and requiring reversal of the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a worker who sustained a back injury on the job in 1979 while employed by Bigge Drayage Company and later experienced an aggravation of the condition from a non-work-related incident at home in 1980. The workers' compensation judge and Appeals Board apportioned the resulting permanent disability, attributing only half or less to the industrial injury based on competing medical opinions. The Court of Appeal held that Labor Code sections 4663 and 4750 do not permit apportionment of disability between an industrial injury and a subsequent nonindustrial aggravation when the disability stems from the original work-related injury, and that apportionment based solely on causation or pathology is improper. The court annulled the apportionment, determined that the industrial injury caused 21.5 percent permanent disability without reduction, and remanded for a new award.

labor & employment

The case concerned a labor dispute between the Modesto City Schools District and the Modesto Teachers’ Association, which began striking in March 1980 after failed negotiations, impasse, fact-finding, and the District’s unilateral adoption of policies on wages and working conditions. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) filed actions seeking injunctive relief against both parties, alleging unfair practices under the Educational Employment Relations Act, including the District’s refusal to negotiate further and the Association’s strike. The superior court issued a conditional temporary restraining order requiring the District to reopen bargaining on changed proposals and refrain from unilateral actions, while ordering the teachers back to work. On appeal, the court examined PERB’s statutory authority to petition for such relief and the propriety of conditioning the injunctions on mutual compliance to restore the bargaining process.

labor & employment

This case involved whether the shooting deaths of two dairy employees in an employer-provided bunkhouse arose out of and in the course of their employment for workers' compensation purposes. The court annulled the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision awarding benefits, holding that the deaths were not compensable. The reasoning was that there was no evidence the employment or the bunkhouse's location contributed to the risk of the attack, which stemmed from a personal dispute arising from a car purchase negotiation with the assailants at a garage sale.

labor & employment

The case involved Rosa Salinas, who was convicted of second degree murder and inflicting cruel or corporal punishment on a child after her three-year-old daughter died from brain injuries caused by repeated beatings. The trial court sentenced her to six years in prison for the murder conviction. On appeal, the court examined the evidence of multiple beatings, including a recorded incident, medical testimony on the fatal subdural hematoma, and the defendant's statements, concluding there was sufficient proof of implied malice. The appellate court also found that any error in failing to give a limiting instruction on prior acts evidence was harmless given the strength of the evidence supporting the conviction. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal law

The case involved plaintiff John E. King, operating as San Juan Pools, seeking damages and foreclosure of a mechanics’ lien against defendant William N. Hinderstein for the installation of a prefabricated swimming pool under a contract signed in 1977. The trial court ruled in favor of Hinderstein after finding that King lacked the required class C-53 swimming pool specialty contractor’s license, possessing only a general class B license that was not properly indicated on the contract documents. The court determined that the project involved multiple unrelated building trades, including excavation, plumbing, electrical work, and concrete installation, and that King had not actively supervised the work. The core reasoning centered on California contractor licensing statutes, which render unlicensed contractors unable to enforce contracts or liens for work requiring a specific license in order to protect the public from unqualified operators.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a challenge to a warrantless search of a residence conducted under the authority of a probation search condition after an informant reported seeing marijuana there. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence and dismissed the charge of possessing marijuana for sale, finding the search exceeded the scope of the probation condition. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the probation condition authorized searches only of the probationer's own residence, person, or possessions, and the officers lacked sufficient basis to conclude the searched home belonged to the probationer rather than his sister-in-law. The decision emphasized that officers must confirm ownership or joint control before extending a probation search to items or premises not clearly covered by the condition.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the convictions of Sammy Dominguez and Anthony Castro for murder and assault with a deadly weapon, along with related firearm enhancements, arising from their participation as Nuestra Familia gang members in a planned robbery and killing of a gang dropout in Bakersfield in October 1977. After a jury trial, both defendants received life sentences on the murder count, with the assault sentences stayed, and they appealed on grounds including the admission of taped conversations under Bruton/Aranda principles and sentencing factors. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the challenged statements were merely cumulative of other evidence of the defendants' association and not prejudicial, and that the trial court properly applied criteria such as separate acts of violence and aggravating circumstances in determining consecutive or concurrent terms.

criminal lawprocedure