The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded for proceedings on the fines, fees, and costs. Under People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, decided during the appeal, the appellant must be given a chance to raise an excessive fines objection to the restitution fine and an ability-to-pay hearing on the court fees. The trial court also violated PC 1203.1h by ordering reimbursement for the SART exam without first finding appellant could pay and before victim restitution was set.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A173404
- June 30, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Matthew Bedrick
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
A169449
- June 30, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Meredith Fahn
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying resentencing and remanded with directions to recall the sentence and resentence under PC 1172.75. Under People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, a prior prison term enhancement imposed as part of the original judgment is invalid and triggers resentencing regardless of whether it was stayed or executed.
A174004
- June 30, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Jesse Rodriguez
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
Father appealed from several orders, including those made at a combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The Court agreed that father’s due process challenges relating to notice were not forfeited on appeal even if they were not timely or adequately raised in the juvenile court. Father did not receive written notice of the hearing and the juvenile court’s “oral” notice was not explicit and clear. The Court found these defects violated his due process rights and the defects were consequential. The jurisdiction and disposition orders were reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
A172848
- June 29, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Megan Hailey-Dunsheath
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck a probation condition that required alcohol testing. The condition failed the third prong under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 because alcohol testing was not reasonably related to appellant’s future criminality: the record showed no alcohol abuse and no alcohol-related offenses, and the trial court had already struck the companion condition barring him from drinking.
A173128
- June 25, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Heather Shallenberger
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal amended the abstract of judgment because it improperly reflected fines the trial court had stayed and assessments it had not actually imposed. Remand was unnecessary on the issue of the fines because the record reflected the trial court’s “compelling and extraordinary reasons” for staying them.
A174221
- June 24, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Suzanne Davidson
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
Mother appealed the juvenile court’s dispositional orders. First, the Court agreed with mother that even though the minor had subsequently been returned to her care, the appeal was not moot due to the potential collateral consequences. As to the merits of the appeal, the Court reversed. The Agency did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to the minor that could not be remedied through any lesser protective measures short of removal.
A174437
- June 18, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Tonja Torres
- Categories: Delinquency, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s restitution order, which held appellant jointly and severally liable for victim restitution in violation of PC 730.6(b)(3).
A174355
- June 17, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Amanda Waters-Luttrell
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the trial court to consider appellant’s ability to pay the court operations and court facilities assessments, and to allow appellant to challenge the $300 restitution fine and the probation revocation fine under the Excessive Fines Clause.
A170475
- June 12, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Sandra Gillies
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Selection
The Court of Appeal held that a prosecutor’s peremptory strike of a Black prospective juror, based mainly on his negative experience with the criminal justice system, was presumptively invalid under PC 231.7(e)(1). The record lacked clear and convincing evidence rebutting that presumption. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial.
A175108
- June 10, 2026
- Attorney: Elizabeth Klippi
Mother appealed from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under WIC 300(c) [substantial risk of serous emotional harm]. The Court of Appeal agreed that the finding pertaining to mother’s conduct was not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court exercised its discretion to review mother’s appeal because the validity of the jurisdictional finding could affect the juvenile court’s subsequent orders as well as further family court proceedings.