Results: 1 - 10 of 497
March 21, 2023
Division: Three
Attorney: Cristina Gabrielidis
Categories: Dependency ICWA
The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is conditionally reversed for ICWA compliance because the Agency failed to conduct an adequate inquiry under ICWA. This was prejudicial error because the record indicated there was readily obtainable information likely to bear meaningfully upon whether the child was an Indian child.
March 10, 2023
Division: Two
Attorney: Jason Szydlik
Categories: Criminal Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal modified the probation condition requiring appellant to comply with an individualized substance abuse treatment plan as ordered by the probation department to clarify that his substance abuse treatment was to be on an outpatient basis. The Court further held that the judgment should be clarified to indicate that the restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4(b) was stayed based on appellant’s inability to pay under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.
March 8, 2023
Division: Three
Attorney: Edward Haggerty
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which now requires that circumstances in aggravation used to justify imposition of the upper term be found true by the jury, admitted by the defendant, or based on prior convictions evidenced by a certified record of conviction. Here, the record failed to show what aggravating factors the trial court relied on, whether the jury found such factors true beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the aggravating factors that the court could consider under the amended statute would cause the court to re-impose the upper term.
March 6, 2023
Division: Five
Attorney: Michele Kemmerling
Categories: Criminal Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal modified the probation condition prohibiting appellant from associating with drug users and traffickers to include an express knowledge requirement. The court also modified that abstract of judgment to include an additional day of presentence credit, which was originally left out due to a mere arithmetic miscalculation.
March 3, 2023
Division: Three
Attorney: Marylou Hillberg
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying appellant’s resentencing petition, concluding that appellant had adequately pleaded a prima facie case for resentencing relief under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) and that the court erred by failing to appoint counsel before summarily denying the petition.
March 2, 2023
Division: Five
Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court erred by not specifying appellant’s maximum period of confinement at the disposition hearing, as required under Welfare and Institutions Code section 726(d), and by failing to calculate his custody credits. The court also struck the electronics search condition, finding that it was not narrowly tailored because it “authorizes a search of ‘any medium of communication reasonably likely to reveal” whether [appellant] is complying with any of the terms of his probation, rather than targeting media reasonably tied to the use of electronics that is in accord with his criminal conduct and personal history.”
March 1, 2023
Attorney: Jamie Moran
Categories: Dependency ICWA
In an appeal from a WIC 366.26 hearing, the Court agreed that the ICWA inquiry was inadequate. The Department failed to satisfy its duty of inquiry under WIC 224.2(b) when it did not make any effort to contact the maternal grandfather. The Court found the error was not harmless under the various standards, except for the presumptive affirmance standard which it declined to follow. The order terminating parental rights was conditionally reversed.
February 28, 2023
Division: Four
Attorney: Christopher Stansell
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of two amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term under certain circumstances.
February 28, 2023
Division: Two
Attorney: Megan Hailey-Dunsheath
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
In light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying appellant’s resentencing petition, concluding that appellant had adequately pleaded a prima facie case for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 and that nothing in the record of conviction conclusively refuted the pleaded allegations
February 24, 2023
Division: Four
Attorney: Marcia Clark
Categories: Criminal Retroactivity of Changes in Law Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal held that AB 333, which became effective while appellant’s appeal was pending and, among other things, amends the substantive elements of a gang enhancement (Pen. Code, §§ 186.22(b) & 12022.53(e)(1)), applies retroactively. The Court further held that the true findings on the gang and gang-related gun enhancements must be vacated and remanded for retrial because the jury did not make the factual findings required under the amended statute.
Results: 1 - 10 of 497