Latest First District Victories

Results: 1 - 10 of 190

A155659

June 2, 2021

Attorney: William Capriola

Categories: Criminal   Evidentiary   Sufficiency of the Evidence   

In a case in which appellant was convicted of, among other sex offenses, annoying or molesting a child under Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (c)(2), the Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence established an essential element of the crime – that appellant’s conduct was both objectively and subjectively irritating or disturbing. Additionally, the Court found trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to inadmissible and prejudicial testimony on several significant topics. Thus, the court reversed the judgment of conviction as to all counts.

S255839

May 27, 2021

Attorney: Leslie Barry

Categories: Dependency   Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)   

[Published Decision __ Cal.5th___] The Supreme Court held that a parent is not required to show progress in addressing issues such as drug abuse that led to the dependency in order to establish the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of WIC section 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i). With respect to the standard of review, the Court held that the first two prongs of the exceptions are reviewed for substantial evidence. The third prong, whether termination would be detrimental to the child due to the parent-child relationship, is reviewed under a hybrid standard. The factual findings as to detriment are reviewed for substantial evidence but the ultimate decision, whether the harm of losing the relationship outweighs the benefits of adoption, is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.

S260928

May 5, 2021

Attorney: Louise Collari

Categories: Dependency   General   

[Published Decision: 11 Cal.5th 234] The Supreme Court held that when an attorney fails to file a timely appeal in accordance with a client’s instructions, the parent may seek relief based on the attorney’s failure to provide competent representation. Whether relief is granted will depend on the parent’s promptness and diligence in pursuing the appeal.

A161510

March 11, 2021

Attorney: Leslie Barry

Categories: Dependency   Petitions to Modify (Section 388)   

In this published opinion, the Court of Appeal stated that due process requires that a parent is entitled to notice of dependency proceedings and the Agency must act with diligence to locate a missing parents. The Court agreed with Ansley v. Superior Court that a parent need not make a separate showing of best interests when raising a notice violation. The Court of Appeal reversed finding father had shown he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 motion.

A159045

November 25, 2020

Attorney: Carol Koenig

Categories: Dependency   Disposition   

Father appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings removing his daughter from parental custody and denying him reunification services. The Court of Appeal agreed with father that he did not receive proper notice of the proceedings, the juvenile court erred by proceeding in his absence, and the error was not harmless.

A157222

September 30, 2020

Attorney: Jesse Rodriguez

Categories: Dependency   General   

The Court of Appeal agreed that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s denial of appellant’s request for presumed father status. Despite the lack of a biological connection, the Court remanded the matter for the juvenile court to reconsider appellant’s request.

A158779

September 11, 2020

Attorney: Seth Gorman

Categories: Dependency   ICWA   

In this appeal from jurisdiction/disposition, the Court of Appeal that the juvenile court and Agency failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the ICWA. The matter was remanded for ICWA compliance.

A156550

September 8, 2020

Attorney: S. Lynne Klein

Categories: Dependency   General   

[Published Decision – 54 Cal.App.5th 298] The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court never provided father with notice of the procedure he should follow to establish that he was the minor’s father and protect his parental rights. This failure was prejudicial and the juvenile court’s orders were reversed.

A159073

July 31, 2020

Attorney: Seth Gorman

Categories: Dependency   Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)   

The Court of Appeal agreed with father that the juvenile court misconstrued the legal standards applicable to the beneficial parent-child relationship and, therefore, did not exercise its discretion in an informed way.

A156797

June 25, 2020

Attorney: Seth Gorman

Categories: Dependency   Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)   

The Court of Appeal reversed the order terminating parental rights finding that the juvenile court erred by improperly considering the likelihood that mother and the children would have post-adoption contact when it determine the beneficial parent child relationship was inapplicable.

Results: 1 - 10 of 190

^