Read on for important information about new panel members, upcoming trainings, and recent First District panel victories.
Welcome to New FDAP Panel Members
We are pleased to welcome to the FDAP panel seven attorneys who joined us in the first quarter of 2026: Nitisha Baronia, Travis Daily, Catherine Markel, Brian Shirazi, Eric Singerman, and Tamani Taylor. We look forward to working with you on your FDAP cases and to having you as part of the FDAP community.
Upcoming Appellate Project Trainings
From Transcript to Story:
Crafting a Narrative Statement of Facts (ADI)
April 15, 2026, 12:00 -1:00 p.m. | Remote
ADI staff attorneys Charles Anderson and Donna Chirco will moderate a virtual discussion on drafting a more compelling and persuasive statement of facts. This interactive presentation, which includes polling questions and encourages audience participation, is relevant to both criminal and dependency appellate practitioners. The training is eligible for 1.0 hour of general MCLE credit and 1.0 hour of appellate specialization credit.
SDAP Seminar
May 1, 2026, 9:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. | Remote
Register now for SDAP’s annual seminar. Sixth District Court of Appeal Associate Justice Charles E. Wilson will speak. The seminar will also include sessions on panel attorney safety, the State Bar disciplinary system, and the use of AI (artificial intelligence) in appellate practice. The full schedule is available on the SDAP website. Approximately 4.0 hours of general MCLE credit will be provided, including 1.0 hour of Ethics and 1.0 hour of Technology credits.
Panel Victories
Below are a few noteworthy First District victories from this past month. There were other victories that could not be included. Please visit the FDAP website for a complete list of panel victories.
A172795 – [Unpublished Opinion | Carrie Kojimoto] The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s order sustaining allegations of second degree burglary and grand theft. The order was not supported by substantial evidence because there was no evidence that appellant had the stolen property when he left the store where the theft occurred.
A174709 – [Unpublished Opinion | Michelle Danley] Father appealed the juvenile court’s disposition order bypassing him for reunification services under WIC 361.5(e) [incarceration]. The Department conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that the juvenile’s court’s denial of reunification services was not supported by substantial evidence.
A171622 – [Unpublished Opinion | Mark Goldrosen] The Court of Appeal remanded for a new sentencing hearing because appellant presented sufficient proof of childhood trauma so as to trigger the lower-term presumption. The lower court made no findings that imposing the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, and the record did not indicate that the court understood PC 1170(b)(6)’s requirements.
A173712 – [Unpublished Opinion | Suzanne Davidson] The Court of Appeal agreed with mother that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under WIC 300(b)(1)(a) was legally and factually insufficient. The jurisdiction and disposition orders were reversed, and the court was directed to dismiss the dependency petition.
A172714 – [Unpublished Opinion | Stephanie Adraktas] The Court of Appeal struck an electronics search condition as invalid under Lent. There was no connection between the use of electronics and the underlying conduct, and there was “no evidence whatsoever” that appellant’s use of electronics “might reflect on his potential for future criminality.” The Court rejected the government’s proposed modification because the modified condition would still be invalid.