Father appealed from disposition raising issues relating to removal, reasonable efforts, due diligence, and relative placement. The Court of Appeal reversed the due diligence findings and the failure to initiate an ICPC for paternal aunt. The Bureau did not exercise due diligence in identifying relatives, did not provide the required notice pursuant to WIC 309(e)(1) and Rule 5.534(b)(3), and failed to evaluate interested adult relatives for placement as required WIC 361.3.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A175511
- September 21, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Jenie Chang
- Categories: Dependency, General, Relative Placement
A172359
- August 27, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Aaron Schechter
- Categories: Credits, Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence by imposing both base terms and Three Strikes sentences on multiple counts, and remanded with directions to delete the unauthorized determinate terms. The Court of Appeal also directed the trial court to recalculate appellant’s custody credits through the date of resentencing.
A172793
- August 21, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Theresa Stevenson
The Court of Appeal remanded with instructions to correct the abstract of judgment after the trial court struck appellant’s one-year prison prior pursuant to PC 1172.75.
A167694
- August 20, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Cynthia Jones
The Court remanded for resentencing after the trial court imposed concurrent sentences, in vioaltion of PC 654, for gun offenses that were all based on a single act of possessing a firearm.
A173406
- August 18, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Ross Thomas
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing and consideration of Wiley, which was decided after appellant was sentenced to the upper term. Appellant stipulated to the fact of his prior convictions but did not stipulate that they were of increasing seriousness. The trial court was also directed to recalculate appellant’s custody credits.
A172384
- August 7, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Nicole Kalum
The Court of Appeal reversed and vacated the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, holding the warrantless car search violated the Fourth Amendment. The protective sweep failed because the officer’s suspicion was based on unparticularized facts (a crossbody bag, a high-crime area, a slow yield, refusal to consent, nervousness) and the K-9 never alerted. The search incident to arrest theory also failed because the officer told appellant he was not under arrest.
A173791
- August 7, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: James Koester
The Court of Appeal remanded for referral to juvenile court for a transfer hearing. After appellant’s successful resentencing petition under PC 1172.6, the trial court redesignated his convictions and resentenced him. However, because he was 16 at the time of the underlying crimes, he remained entitled to a juvenile court transfer hearing under Proposition 57.
A173729
- August 6, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Walter Pyle
The Court of Appeal remanded for consideration of appellant’s ability to pay the $300 restitution fine under PC 1202.4, which was imposed before Kopp was decided.
A174435
- July 30, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Matthew Bedrick
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck appellant’s electronic search conditions as unreasonable under Lent. Appellant never contacted the victim through an electronic device, and the conditions’ burden on appellant’s privacy was substantially disproportionate to ensuring his compliance with his other probation conditions. The court also modified a condition restricting his association with minors under 14 years old to include a knowledge requirement.
A174472
- July 30, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Eleanor Mammen
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal modified a probation condition prohibiting appellant from “frequent[ing] any area where gang members are known to congregate, or areas known for gang-related activity.” To avoid a claim of unconstitutional vagueness, the court replaced “frequent” with “visit” and specified that the prohibited areas include those designated by the probation officer.