Mother left her apartment

Go down

Mother left her apartment

Post by haoxinren on Fri 21 Jan 2011, 3:17 pm

Law enforcement officers obtained a warrant to search appellant's home as part of a child pornography investigation. They seized appellant's computer, which contained pornographic images and videos of children, some as young as six years old. Officers also discovered methamphetamine paraphernalia and 0.31 grams of methamphetamine.
During a police interview, appellant admitted that he had child pornography on his computer and that he was interested in ages "teens and under." He acknowledged that he had downloaded pornography and had images of female children ages five and six. When searching for pornography, he used terms such as "pre-teen," "young teens," or "teen pussy." He also searched for ages "ten, eleven, supra shoes sale." Watching pornography makes he "feel guilty" because he knows it is "not right." Appellant admitted that he is a drug addict and had been using methamphetamine on and off since 1974.
According to the probation report, appellant admitted that he viewed pornography involving 18-year-olds, but was adamant that he never purposely viewed child pornography. He once searched for "young teens" and was surprised when child images surfaced. On one occasion he entered "10, 11, 12" on the search bar of a pornographic website. He stated that he does not get aroused when looking at images of young children.
At trial, appellant testified that he did not intentionally download child pornography. He stated that he only searched for adult pornography, and when child pornography accidentally appeared on the supra footwear for customers, he did not view it.
Appellant requests that we independently review the denial of his motions to unseal a search warrant affidavit containing information from a confidential informant, and to quash and traverse the warrant. He also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reduce his felony conviction in count 1 to a misdemeanor. After reviewing the record of the in camera hearing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motions. Nor did it abuse its sentencing discretion. We affirm.
Wilson, who represented himself in the trial court and who again represents himself on his appeal to this court, contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. As we shall explain, appellant's contention lacks merit because a court cannot grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a case in which there was no jury verdict. He also contends that the court made various erroneous rulings before and during trial, but his assertions are conclusory and are unaccompanied by any showing of actual and prejudicial error. We will affirm the judgment.
In the early afternoon of October 9, 2007, appellant Audrey Dempsey left her hair appointment at a beauty shop located on Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena. As she began walking on the sidewalk, appellant encountered another pedestrian walking in the opposite direction. Appellant moved closer to the street to allow the pedestrian to pass her. As she did that, she tripped and fell on a raised concrete slab of sidewalk.
Appellant sued the City of Pasadena (City) for a dangerous condition of public property. The City moved for summary judgment on the ground that the sidewalk defect was trivial and the City was not on notice that it existed.
In support of the motion, the City http://www.onlinesuprashoessale.com/supra-shoes-supra-tk-society-c-65_68.html appellant's deposition, which established that the accident occurred on a nice day; appellant was wearing tennis shoes; she was walking fast and did not notice the defect before she fell, even though nothing was blocking her view; she had no memory of falling and she had passed over the same sidewalk during previous visits to the beauty shop.
The City's public works superintendent, who took a photograph of the sidewalk defect, declared that the height difference between the sidewalk slabs measured just less than one inch at its highest. The displacement of the slabs was even and clearly visible to a person approaching it. The City's dc shoes coordinator declared that the City had received no complaints regarding the defect. The city engineer explained that the City had surveyed its sidewalks in 2004 and had observed no defect at the location. The City requested the court to take judicial notice that the accident occurred in a much traveled business area of Pasadena.
When Anthony was born, Mother accepted voluntary family maintenance services from the Department to help her stabilize her living situation and attend the court ordered classes. On October 28, 2009, however, Mother contacted her caseworker and told her that she was being evicted again, but refused to stay at a shelter with three-week-old Anthony. When the caseworker visited Mother at her apartment on November 3, 2009, she found it in a state of disarray with "trash all over the floor" and "[a] pile of dishes on the sink with old crusty food."
Mother left her apartment on November 6, 2009, and the caseworker lost contact with her until she called to say she was being evicted from another apartment on November 16, 2009. She again refused to move into a shelter, instead choosing to move in with a friend's family, whose names and address she was not able to provide. In the interim, the caseworker spoke with Mother's former roommate, who stated that Mother owed her $1,435 and that she was concerned for the baby because she did not know whether Mother would find a safe place for herself and the baby. Anthony was detained and placed in foster care with his sisters on November 18, 2009. At the time of the detention, the Department noted that "Baby Anthony's medical, mental, and emotional status is normal but he sounded congested." The Department learned in subsequent interviews that Mother often left Anthony with an unidentified blond man who usually spent the night with Mother and that Mother had received $880 in financial assistance to pay for rent on November 13, 2009, but failed to use it to pay the supra vaider shoes.

haoxinren
Registered Member
Registered Member

Posts : 8
Points : 2667
Join date : 2011-01-21

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum