Read on for important information and reminders about online superior court case information, Truefiling no issues briefs, arriving early for oral arguments, dependency training videos, upcoming trainings, and panel victories.
Take Advantage of Superior Court Case Information Available Online
With the exception of Humboldt County Superior Court, each of the superior courts in the First District now has substantial case information available online. The information generally includes docket entries and, in some counties, viewable and downloadable copies of documents filed in the case. The information can be a valuable resource, including by helping with the identification of omitted record materials.
You can access the online case information through the superior courts’ websites, or through the “California Superior Courts” section of our Directory page, which includes links to the courts’ online case information pages. Note that some counties require completion of a short registration process for full access to the available information.
For county jail booking information available online, see the “county jail” section of our Locating and Contacting a Person in Custody page.
Truefiling Update: No Issues Briefs
When choosing a document filing type, Truefiling now gives five options for no-issues briefs: “Wende,” “Serrano,” “Delgadillo,” “Phoenix H.,” or “Ben C.” The Court of Appeal is asking attorneys to select the appropriate brief description when filing a no-issues brief.
Court of Appeal Elevators Out of Order – Arrive Early to Oral Argument
The Court of Appeal has advised that both passenger elevators in the Earl Warren Building at 350 McAllister Street are out of service for necessary modernization, from September 11, 2023 until the end of February 2024. During this period, those wishing to attend oral argument will be escorted to an alternative elevator and should arrive a few minutes earlier than usual to accommodate this.
Dependency Training Videos Available
The joint-project dependency training series videos and accompanying handouts are available on CCAP’s website. This four-part series is an excellent introduction to dependency appellate practice and covers issue identification and assessment, an overview of the dependency process, and the differences between criminal and dependency practice.
Upcoming Trainings
Full descriptions and registration links for the following trainings can be found on the Upcoming Events page of the FDAP website.
Caden C. – Its interpretation and Application in the Courts
Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 12 p.m. Register here.
Leslie Barry & Louise Collari (FDAP)
The RJA on Appeal Part I: Strategic and Procedural Considerations
Monday, October 30 at 12 p.m. Register here.
Deborah Rodriguez (FDAP), Lauren Dodge (FDAP), & Peter Westacott (CAP-LA)
The RJA on Appeal Part II: Hearing Dog Whistles: How to Identify Racially-Coded Language and Raise the Issue on Appeal
Monday, November 13 at 12 p.m. Register here.
Anna Stuart (SDAP) & Joe Doyle
New Legislation Webinar
Wednesday, December 6 at 12 p.m. Register here.
Nat Miller (FDAP) & Deborah Rodriguez (FDAP)
Panel Victories
Below are a few noteworthy First District victories from this past month. These victories and many more can be found on the Panel Victories page of FDAP’s Website.
A166527 – [Published Opinion | Panel Attorney Seth Gorman] Agreeing with In re Delilia D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953, the Court of Appeal finds the duty to make ICWA inquiry of extended family members applies even if the children were not taken into “temporary custody” pursuant to WIC 306. The court adopts the In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735 standard of prejudice, under which reversal is required if there was readily obtainable information that was likely to bear meaningfully upon whether the child is an Indian child.
A166802 – [Unpublished Opinion | Panel Attorney Eric Multhaup] The Court of Appeal reversed the prima facie denial of appellant’s PC 1172.6 petition, finding that the trial court erred by (1) engaging in premature factfinding and (2) concluding appellant was ineligible for sentencing relief based on the jury’s true finding that appellant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense.
A166461 – [Unpublished Opinion | Panel Attorney Maria Leftwich] The Court of Appeal held that appellant, who was 20 years old when he committed his offense and claimed he suffered trauma from a substance abuse disorder, was entitled to the benefit of the ameliorative amendments to PC 1170 when the trial court executed his previously imposed sentence after appellant’s probation was terminated. Additionally, the Court held that the trial court erred by failing to require an updated probation report before revoking probation and executing sentence. The court reached these issues, notwithstanding that trial counsel failed to rise them below, because the record affirmatively showed that “the trial court did not understand the now more limited scope of its discretion. . . .”