Latest First District Victories

Results: 21 - 30 of 184

A155556

June 3, 2019

Attorney: Alexis Collentine

Categories: Dependency   General   

The Court of Appeal determined that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered mother and foster mother to share educational rights over the child. The Court found that the juvenile court used an incorrect legal standard as it did not consider whether limiting the educational rights of mother was necessary to protect the child.

A155129

April 26, 2019

Attorney: Elizabeth Klippi

Categories:

Father raised ICWA errors in an appeal from the termination of parental rights. The Court found the failure of the Department to follow up with the paternal grandmother and/or other relatives to ensure that all necessary information was included in the ICWA notices was not harmless error. The order terminating parental rights was conditionally reversed and the case remanded to the juvenile court.

A154969

April 25, 2019

Attorney: Stephanie Clarke

Categories: Credits   Delinquency   

The trial court failed to calculate custody credits when setting the minor’s maximum period of confinement.

A155128

April 19, 2019

Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto

Categories:

Finding no substantial evidence to support the distant placement of a minor to a Ranch about 190 miles away from his home, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with instructions to reconsider the placement decision.

A155156

October 28, 2019

Attorney: David Polsky

Categories:

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike the 5-year prior serious felony enhancement (PC sec. 667, subd. (a)(1)).

A155552

October 15, 2019

Attorney: Leila Moncharsh

Categories:

The Court of Appeal struck the electronic search condition, but remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether a narrower condition would comport with In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113.

A155328

April 19, 2019

Attorney: Philip Brooks

Categories:

Standing alone, a defendant’s actions AFTER a murder betraying an indifference to the loss of life was insufficient to show the defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life as required by Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d). Under the authority of People v. Banks, a defendant acts with reckless indifference to human life when he or she knowingly creates a grave risk of death. The evidence here did not establish that the defendant had the intent to create such a risk.

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).

A148171

February 2, 2017

Attorney: Mara Bernstein

Categories: Dependency   ICWA   Review Hearings   

[Published Decision – 9 Cal.App.5th 339] Father appealed from the juvenile court’s findings at the six-month review hearing. The Court of Appeal agreed stating father’s out-of-state location and lack of participation did not excuse the Department’s failure to provide reasonable services. In addition, the Department failed to make the required active efforts under the ICWA to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.

A157313

December 13, 2019

Attorney: Rodney Jones

Categories: Criminal   General   

After pleading guilty to four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen. Code,1 § 261.5, subd. (c)), appellant was sentenced to a split sentence (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)) comprised of two years in county jail and two years on mandatory supervision. Following appellant’s release from county jail, the court found that appellant had agreed as part of the negotiated plea to a lifetime registration requirement under Penal Code section 290. Appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal found that the parties agreed that appellant would only have to register during her mandatory supervision (not the lifetime registration requirement the trial court imposed).

Results: 21 - 30 of 184

^