Opinion
B223580
12-21-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEONIS C. MALBURG et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA327248)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
AND DENYING REHEARING
NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 30, 2011, be modified as follows:
1. On page 6, line 4 of the first full paragraph, after "addresses:" and before "2833 Leonis Boulevard" add "an office building owned by Leonis Malburg at" so that the sentence reads in part:
. . . two residential addresses: an office building owned by Leonis Malburg at 2833 Leonis Boulevard . . . .
2. On page 6, second sentence of the second full paragraph, insert "on the third floor" between the words "tenant" and "who" so that the sentence reads in part:
He spoke to a tenant on the third floor who said no one lived in the building but the owner; . . .
3. On page 6, line 4 of the second full paragraph, delete "another tenant on the third floor" and insert "a tenant on the second floor" in its place, so that the sentence reads in part:
Villamayor spoke to a tenant on the second floor, who said she knew all . . .
4. On page 32, under heading C, the third full paragraph beginning "Defendants' assertion rests" is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:
Defendants' assertion rests on the principle that "Judge Pastor, as the reviewing judge, was not authorized to review the affidavit to see if any crime was committed, but rather whether there was probable cause for the crimes alleged in the affidavit." We disagree.
5. On page 34, line 1 of the second paragraph, the word "magistrate" is changed to "reviewing court" so the sentence reads in part:
To the extent Abboud can be read as holding that a reviewing court is not authorized . . .
There is no change in the judgment. Defendants' petitions for rehearing are denied.
_________________
WOODS, Acting P. J.
_________________
ZELON, J.