Results: 11 - 20 of 194
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.
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.
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.
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.
August 17, 2020
Attorney: Hilda Scheib
Categories: Criminal Prosecutorial, Juror, and Judicial Misconduct
In a case in which a former police officer was charged with nine counts of felony grand theft (Penal Code section 487, subd. (a)), the Court of Appeal held that “the prosecutor repeatedly used deceptive or reprehensible methods that, given their cumulative impact, denied defendant his right to a fair trial.” Specifically, the court found that the following acts constituted misconduct: (1) misleading the jury about whether the prosecution offered defendant a plea deal; (2) impugning defendant’s character by referring to him in the jury’s presence as a “dirty cop”; (3) stating before the jury that a “female judge” had found the alleged victim’s story credible at the preliminary hearing; and (4) insinuating that the trial judge or the court had an improper relationship with defendant.
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.
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.
January 24, 2020
Attorney: Seth Gorman
Categories: Dependency ICWA
The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded the matter to the juvenile court with the directions to order the Agency to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and the current versions of sections 224.2 and 224.3 with specific direction that the Agency was to make proper and adequate inquiry of mother and known maternal and paternal relatives concerning potential Indian ancestry and to send new ICWA notices to all appropriate tribes.
January 14, 2020
Attorney: Jeremy Price
Categories: Criminal Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
In this case, the trial court ordered appellant to pay $4,100.26 as victim restitution, which was issued without a hearing even though appellant had explicitly requested one to contest the proposed restitution amount. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s failure to hold a restitution hearing violated appellant’s statutory right to a hearing to contest the amount of restitution and his due process right to be present at that hearing.
January 13, 2020
Attorney: Lauren Dodge
Categories: Criminal Discovery
After appellant filed a request for disclosure of police personnel records under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, the trial court erred in two respects: (1) it failed to obtain sworn testimony from the custodian of records explaining what documents in the personnel files were withheld and why they were deemed nonresponsive; and (2) the court’s order to disclose some information was not communicated to the parties.
Results: 11 - 20 of 194