First District Panel Victories

Results: 221 - 230 of 241

A158023

April 26, 2018

Attorney: Amanda Sherwood

Categories: Dependency   Petitions to Modify (Section 388)   

On appeal, mother argued that the juvenile court applied the incorrect evidentiary standard to her section 388 petition. Respondent conceded that the juvenile court erred.  The Court of Appeal remanded the matter stating that section 388 did not require the heightened burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence be applied to petitions to modify bypass orders based on section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(11) and (13).

A150823

April 26, 2018

Attorney: Amanda Sherwood

Categories: Dependency   Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)   Petitions to Modify (Section 388)   

Mother appealed from the order of the juvenile court denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and terminating her parental rights under section 366.26. Mother argued that the juvenile court applied the incorrect evidentiary standard to the section 388 petition. The Court of Appeal found that juvenile court incorrectly applied the clear and convincing standard to whether or not to grant the section 388 petition. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter to the juvenile court to apply the correct burden of proof.

A151473

April 13, 2018

Division: One

Attorney: Cheryl Cotterill

Categories: Delinquency   Sentencing   

Court of Appeal struck maximum term of confinement, imposed where the minor was not removed from parental custody as set out in Welf. & Inst Code section 726, subd(d)(1).

A148539

April 11, 2018

Division: One

Attorney: Richard Such

Categories: Criminal   Right to Counsel   

Court of Appeal reversed no contest plea (lewd acts upon a child under 14, rape, multiple victim allegation) resulting in 35 years-to-life sentence, based on the trial court abusing its discretion in denying request to discharge retained counsel and court failing to properly advise defendant about the consequences of plea. The erroneous denial of right to discharge retained counsel is presumptively prejudicial and automatically requires reversal.

A151369

April 10, 2018

Division: Five

Attorney: Violet Elizabeth Grayson

Categories: Delinquency   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal reversed the DJF placement due to a lack of evidence of benefit to the minor. Although the probation report asserted that DJF was the best placement to address the needs of the minor and it can be presumed that assertion was based on some knowledge of the DJF, the “unexplained and unsupported assertion of possible benefit is not evidence of reasonable, credible, and of solid value” from which the juvenile court could make an informed decision. Remanded for a new disposition hearing.

A146956

April 3, 2018

Division: Two

Attorney: Maggie Shrout

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

Court of Appeal agreed with reasoning in People v. Abdallah (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 736., that it was error to impose Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b), one-year prior prison term enhancement after underlying felony conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor. Noting that once felony is reduced to a misdemeanor, the imposition of the enhancement would be contrary to voter intent in enacting Prop 47.

A151853

March 29, 2018

Division: Five

Attorney: Janet Saalfield

Categories: Dependency   Disposition   Jurisdiction   

Mother raised multiple issues on appeal from the trial court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders. The Court of Appeal agreed with mother that the visitation order stating “as arranged by the parents” effectively delegated to father the discretion to allow visitation. The visitation order was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

A151003

March 29, 2018

Division: Five

Attorney: Linda Conrad

Categories: Dependency   ICWA   

The Court of Appeal reversed the order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights due to the failure of the Department to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Department sent notice to some of the Sioux and Apache tribes but not all of them. The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the Department to notify the remaining Sioux and Apache tribes.

A152645

March 23, 2018

Division: One

Attorney: Seth Gorman

Categories: Dependency   ICWA   Jurisdiction   

In this appeal from jurisdictional and dispositional findings, the Court of Appeal found ICWA errors due to the Bureau’s failure to notice all federally recognized Apache tribes, not just the Mescalero tribe. With respect to its duty of inquiry, the Court stated the Agency should conduct a meaningful investigation of maternal grandmother’s purported Indian ancestry, making genuine efforts to locate family members who have more information. The Court agreed with mother that the record did not contain evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the subdivision (b) allegation based on mother’s alleged chronic untreated mental health condition. Even though other jurisdictional allegations were sustained, the Court reversed as to the subdivision (b) finding because it could have consequences for mother beyond jurisdiction. The Court also struck the references to untreated mental health in the section 300, subdivision (j) allegations. The Court agreed that the juvenile court did not give mother the required advisements or obtain a personal waiver from her but found that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

A151743

March 21, 2018

Division: Four

Attorney: Amy Grigsby

Categories: Dependency   ICWA   

On appeal from the order of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights, father argued that the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the ICWA. The Court concluded that the information about father’s Indian ancestry was sufficient to trigger a duty of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that the duty of ICWA inquiry was affirmative and continuing. Even though the Department had access to multiple members of the minor’s extended family who could have been questioned about father’s claim of Indian ancestry, the Department relied solely on its initial failure to obtain additional information for its conclusion that the ICWA did not apply in this case.

Results: 221 - 230 of 241

^