Latest First District Victories

Results: 11 - 20 of 194

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.

A151336

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.

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.

A157994

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.

A157168

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.

A155747

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

^