[Published Decision] The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s order denying father’s WIC section 388 petition for modification alleging lack of notice and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. Father had requested that the dispositional order be vacated because he was not served with the dependency petition, or notice of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, or the statutorily required form for asserting paternity. The Court of Appeal concluded that father was entitled to an evidentiary hearing as to whether the Agency ignored the most likely means of finding him and thereby denied him due process.
A160929
- May 24, 2021
- Attorney: Pamela Tripp
- Categories: Dependency, Petitions to Modify (Section 388)
S260928
- May 5, 2021
- Attorney: Louise Collari
- Categories: Dependency, General
[Published Decision: 11 Cal.5th 234] The Supreme Court held that when an attorney fails to file a timely appeal in accordance with a client’s instructions, the parent may seek relief based on the attorney’s failure to provide competent representation. Whether relief is granted will depend on the parent’s promptness and diligence in pursuing the appeal.
A153494
- May 3, 2021
- Division: Five
- Attorney: James Kyle Gee
- Categories: Criminal, General, Pleading and Proof
The Court of Appeal held that several counts of rape must be reversed because California lacked jurisdiction over those crimes since they occurred in a different state. Penal Code section 778a, subdivision (a) confers jurisdiction over crimes committed outside California only “if the defendant formed the requisite intent within this state and committed any act, including preparatory acts, showing that the crimes were initiated within California.” In this case, the court found that the rapes were “commenced” and completed in another state. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the A.G.’s argument that the rapes furthered the human trafficking enterprise that, which originated in California.
A159194
- April 29, 2021
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Eric Larson
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Sentencing
[Published Decision] Court of Appeal struck the parole revocation fine (because appellant received a sentence with no possibility of parole) and remanded the matter for the trial court to exercise its discretion on whether to impose concurrent or consecutive life terms using appropriate considerations. Here, the Court of Appeal found that trial court was clear about why it chose consecutive rather than concurrent LWOP terms, and that its sole reason – the possibility of appellate relief on one or more counts – was not an appropriate basis for imposing consecutive terms.
A161510
- March 11, 2021
- Attorney: Leslie Barry
- Categories: Dependency, Petitions to Modify (Section 388)
In this published opinion, the Court of Appeal stated that due process requires that a parent is entitled to notice of dependency proceedings and the Agency must act with diligence to locate a missing parents. The Court agreed with Ansley v. Superior Court that a parent need not make a separate showing of best interests when raising a notice violation. The Court of Appeal reversed finding father had shown he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 motion.
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.
A158676
- November 9, 2020
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Don Lipmanson
- Categories: Competency, Criminal, Habeas, Right to Counsel
The Court of Appeal held that the trail court erred by denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance at the plea stage by failing to consider appellant’s mental deficiencies at the time of the plea or a possible mental defense to the criminal threat charge (Pen. Code, § 422), despite appellant informing trial counsel of undefined mental health issues and the police reports (which trial counsel possessed) indicating that the arresting officers had numerous prior contacts with appellant regarding his aberrant behavior and considered whether they should initiate commitment proceedings.
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.