[Published decision – 33 Cal.App.5th 835]The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it issued exit orders awarding custody of the minor to father and terminating jurisdiction. In reversing the orders of the juvenile court, the Court found that the juvenile court strayed significantly from the statutory framework. The Court also addressed issues relating to the applicability of the UCCJEA and that post-appeal events did not render the appeal moot.
A152993
- March 29, 2019
- Attorney: Karen Elcaness
- Categories: Dependency, General, Jurisdiction
A153293
- March 29, 2019
- Division: One
- Attorney: Linda Harvie
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The trial court lacked the authority to impose probation conditions on the minor once the court committed the minor to the DJJ. The conditions were stricken.
A152525
- March 28, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Steven Lubliner
- Categories: Criminal, Pleading and Proof
Under People v. Gallardo, the trial court violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights by relying on an ambiguous record of his Nevada convictions in order to find true the prior strike allegations against appellant. Like in Gallardo, the proper remedy was to remand the case.
A152729
- March 28, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: John Schuck
- Categories: Criminal, Prosecutorial, Juror, and Judicial Misconduct
Trial court abused its discretion in removing a juror from the jury based on the juror’s inability to perform his or her duty. The trial court found that the juror considered information outside of the evidence that was admitted into trial, applied different and incorrect standards of the burden of proof, failed to follow the law and instructions as given, and considered punishment. The Court of Appeal found the trial court’s reasoning for discharging the juror was not manifestly supported by the evidence.
A152479
- March 26, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Patrick McKenna
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The terms “pornography” and “sexually explicit” images or material, as used in two of the minor’s probation conditions, are unconstitutionally vague and do not provide fair warning about the prohibited conduct, nor permit the juvenile court to intelligently determine if any of the conditions has been violated. The Court of Appeal modified the conditions to reference “materials depicting obscene matter as described in Penal Code section 311, subdivisions (a) and (b).”
A154412
- March 25, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Nahaniel Miller
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
Two of the minor’s probation conditions included words or phrases that made the conditions unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Specifically, the Court held that the term “sexually arousing materials” should be modified to “materials that are primarily intended to cause sexual arousal.” The Court further held that the prohibition of possession of material depicting nudity or containing “sexually explicit language” must be stricken because it is far broader than necessary or permissible.
A151556
- March 21, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Juliana Drous
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Appellant was convicted of five counts of making criminal threats with the use of a deadly weapon. The Court of Appeal found that her sentence for three of the criminal threats counts should have been stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, which precludes multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct. While the court noted that section 654 does not apply to violent crimes against multiple victims, the jury found not true the deadly weapon enhancement in connection with the burglary, rendering that conviction nonviolent.
A152332
- March 21, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Carol Chodroff
- Categories: Criminal, Discovery
The in camera Pitchess hearing, which the trial court conducted, did not conform with prescribed procedures. From the limited transcript of the in camera proceedings, the Court of Appeal could not tell whether the custodian of records brought all potentially responsive documents, and whether the juvenile court reviewed the potentially responsive documents or merely a summary. For that reason, the Court conditionally reversed the judgment of conviction.
A147907
- March 19, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Geoff Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
In a case where the defendant was convicted of the forcible rape and digital penetration of his 17-year-old niece, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing under section 782 and in excluding evidence that the defendant threatened to disclose his niece was having an affair with the boyfriend of her mother, giving his niece a strong motive to falsely accuse him of rape. The Court therefore reversed the convictions.
A150771
- March 19, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Richard Such
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The trial court erred by imposing the $30 criminal conviction and $40 court operations assessments as probation conditions. The assessments should not have be imposed as probation conditions because they were collateral to the defendant’s possession offense and not directed towards his rehabilitation.