The Court of Appeal vacated an order directing appellant to pay restitution to the insurer of the victim, her employer. Because only a “direct victim” of a crime may receive restitution, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the insurer.
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District. Unfortunately, we were not able to update our First District victories page during that time. Even though the victories are not on the website, we appreciate all of the hard work done by the panel and continued dedication to our clients.**
A172041
- March 12, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Richard Braucher
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
A173420
- March 11, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Ellen Ivens-Duran
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal struck a $41 fine that the trial court erroneously imposed and stayed. The trial court had imposed the fine under PC 1202.5, which authorizes fines for enumerated theft offenses but not resisting or deterring an officer to which appellant pled no contest.
A173712
- March 10, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Suzanne Davidson
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition, Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal agreed with mother that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under WIC 300(b)(1)(a) was legally and factually insufficient. The jurisdiction and disposition orders were reversed and the court was directed to dismiss the dependency petition.
A172714
- March 9, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Stephanie Marie Adraktas
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck an electronics search condition as invalid under Lent. There was no connection between the use of electronics and the underlying conduct, and there was “no evidence whatsoever” that appellant’s use of electronics “might reflect on his potential for future criminality.” The Court rejected the government’s proposed modification because the condition would still satisfy the Lent factors.
A173218
- March 6, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Elizabeth Thornton
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
Mother appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings. The appellate court found that the jurisdictional findings were supported by substantial evidence but reversed the dispositional order. Substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding there were no reasonable means to protect the child without removing her from mother’s care or that the Bureau made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal. In addition, the juvenile court erred by failing to state the facts on which it based its removal findings.
A173844
- February 25, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Nat Miller
- Categories: Criminal
The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the denial of pretrial mental health diversion (PC 1001.36), holding the trial court failed to exercise informed discretion by focusing on appellant’s generalized risk of violence rather than the required inquiry: whether appellant posed an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike offense.
A170342
- February 20, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Christina Alvarez
- Categories: Criminal, Right to Counsel, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because the trial court relied on facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt when it found, as an aggravating circumstance, that the underlying crime involved great violence and great bodily harm. The Court also remanded for reconsideration of appellant’s Marsden motion, as the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether defense counsel had adequately prepared for sentencing.
A172292
- February 20, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
- Categories: Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal struck a $300 restitution fine imposed on appellant, a minor, as a condition of probation. Under WIC 730.6(a)(2), the court could not require both direct victim restitution and a separate, punitive restitution fine.
A171788
- February 19, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Kaiya Pirolo
- Categories: Civil Commitment
The Court of Appeal reversed an order recommitting appellant to DSH because the record did not show that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. While appellant had sometimes indicated his desire to avoid a trial generally, the record did not affirmatively establish that he understood the court’s explanation of the differences between a bench trial and jury trial.
A173769
- February 3, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Leslie Barry
- Categories: Dependency, General, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
Father appealed the denial of his request for presumed father status, denial of his WIC 388 petition, and termination of his parental rights. The Court of Appeal agreed that the juvenile court did not conduct a proper paternity inquiry and did not receive the required notice or counsel to which he was entitled. In addition, the juvenile court erred by not finding father to be the minor’s presumed father. These errors were prejudicial. The order terminating parental rights was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.