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.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A175108
- June 10, 2026
- Attorney: Elizabeth Klippi
A170583
- May 29, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Hilda Scheib
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because the trial court relied on an aggravating factor not found true by the jury.
A173225
- May 29, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: James Koester
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal reversed the deadly or dangerous weapon enhancement because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could find the enhancement true if the weapon (a maul) was either (1) inherently deadly or dangerous, or (2) used in such a way that was capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
A173117
- May 28, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Nicole Kalum
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal modified the judgment to reflect that the sentence for felony possession of ammunition was stayed pursuant to PC 654. Because all of the ammunition recovered was loaded in the firearm, the acts of possessing the firearm and the ammunition were indivisible.
A174314
- May 28, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Sarah Javaheri
The Court of Appeal held that a probation condition that directed appellant to “report to [her] probation officer as directed and follow his or her orders” improperly delegated authority to the probation officer. The Court of Appeal modified the condition to clarify that it only pertained to the probation officer’s orders that “related to the probation conditions imposed by the court.”
A172863
- May 27, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Leslie Prince
- Categories: Criminal, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal reversed one of appellant’s convictions because there was insufficient evidence to establish that the crime took place within the county’s jurisdiction.
A173343
- May 22, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Liv Gee
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to clarify whether it intended the 16-month low term or the two-year middle term as the base, given the contradictory references in the oral pronouncement and abstract of judgment.
A173336
- May 22, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Nat Miller
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s sentence and remanded for full resentencing. The trial court had imposed an upper term sentence based on an aggravating factor it found true at a bench trial. However, appellant did not expressly waive his right to a jury trial on that factor, so the bench finding violated the Sixth Amendment.
A173523
- May 20, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Sterling Tipton
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to strike or modify an improper probation condition. The condition permitted the probation officer to decide the type and amount of substance use treatment, which was an impermissible delegation of judicial authority. The Court of Appeal also directed the trial court to remove the requirement that appellant pay for the cost of treatment.
A171794
- May 20, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Nat Miller
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to modify or strike an improper probation condition. The condition permitted the probation officer to decide whether treatment would be residential, which was an impermissible delegation of judicial authority.