The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s three-year baseline term in a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF, WIC 875) case and reduced it to two years, holding the term was not supported by substantial evidence. Probation and the prosecutor both supported two years, the appellant had limited involvement in the offense, and appellant showed progress in custody.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A170960
- August 7, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Erin Keefe
- Categories: Delinquency
A169614
- July 28, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Anne Mania
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court’s denial of appellant’s PC 1172.75 motion for resentencing in light of People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, where the California Supreme Court held that section 1172.75 applies to one-year prior prison term enhancements that were imposed and stayed.
A169269
- July 18, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Dominique Armstrong and Richard Braucher
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the juvenile court prejudicially erred by reviewing appellant’s probation report in violation of In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.780(c). The evidence presented at the jurisdictional hearing connecting appellant to the crime was far from conclusive as the victim’s in-court identification of appellant was unreliable.
A168013
- July 17, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Rex Williams
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing after finding that the excessive blood alcohol allegation was unsupported by the evidence and that the trial court’s imposition of the upper-term sentence violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. There was no evidence of appellant’s blood alcohol level (BAL) when she was driving because the testing occurred 2.5 hours after arrest, and there was no expert testimony to extrapolate an earlier BAL. Also, the trial court erred because appellant had the right to have a jury decide whether to apply enhancements based on prior failures on probation and her probation status when she committed the crime.
A171165
- July 15, 2025
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal struck a probation condition authorizing probation to impose “any program of guidance” because it gave the probation officer unfettered discretion to dictate the therapy in which appellant must participate. The Court reasoned that this condition amounted to an impermissible delegation of authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Court remanded to permit the juvenile court to modify the condition.
A170177
- June 30, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Heather Mackay
- Categories: Credits, Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because the trial court erred by imposing an enhancement under PC 667(a) that appellant never admitted in his plea and by failing to update his credits for time served at the time of resentencing. Specifically, the trial court erred by replacing an invalid PC 667.5(b) enhancement that appellant admitted with an enhancement for a prior conviction of a serious felony that he did not admit.
A170015
- June 27, 2025
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Eric R. Larson
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion, under People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, to impose a lesser firearm enhancement (PC 12022.53(d)).
A172172
- June 26, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Leila Moncharsh
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Court of Appeal agreed with appellant mother that the Agency did not fulfill its responsibilities under Rule 5.481 to make an adequate inquiry. The matter was conditionally reversed and remanded for the Agency to comply with ICWA inquiry, notice and documentation requirements.
A170958
- June 24, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: John Leis Staley
- Categories: Criminal, General
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of mental health diversion under PC 1001.36, concluding it abused its discretion by finding that appellant’s mental disorders were not a significant factor of the offense. The court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion and exercise its discretion.
A166218
- June 24, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Janice Lagerlof
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s murder and attempted murder convictions because the trial court failed to sua sponte instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense for attempted murder (CALCRIM No. 604) despite substantial supporting evidence.