The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s order sustaining allegations of second-degree burglary and grand theft. The order was not supported by substantial evidence that appellant had the stolen property when he left the store where the theft occurred.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A172795
- March 25, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
- Categories: Delinquency
A174709
- March 23, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Michelle Danley
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
Father appealed the juvenile court’s disposition order bypassing him for reunification services under WIC 361.5(e)[incarceration]. The Department conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that the trial court’s denial of reunification services was not supported by substantial evidence. The juvenile court failed to consider several required factors and focused on whether services would be realistic rather than the proper inquiry of whether their provision would be detrimental to the child.
A170609
- March 13, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Aaron Schechter
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a full resentencing because the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it sentenced appellant under the Two Strikes law as an enhancement of the determinate base term. Because the Two Strikes law sets out an alternate penalty, not an additional term, “the trial court may either sentence the defendant under the penalty specified in the underlying statute or based on the Two Strikes law, but not both.”
A174187
- March 13, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jeffrey Kross
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a full resentencing under PC 1172.75, with directions to appoint counsel. The trial court, upon being notified by CDCR of appellant’s eligibility for resentencing, dismissed three years of enhancements but did not conduct a full resentencing. Appellant was also “not notified of the court’s intent to modify the judgment, was not appointed counsel, was not notified of any court proceedings related to modification of the judgment, and did not appear at any such proceedings.”
A172041
- March 12, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Richard Braucher
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal vacated an order directing appellant to pay restitution to the insurer of the victim, her employer. Because only a “direct victim” of a crime may receive restitution, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the insurer.
A169378
- March 12, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Randall Conner
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order because it erroneously considered the probation report during the contested hearing. The evidence at the hearing was “close” and “did not conclusively establish” appellant’s involvement in the underlying robbery, so the error was prejudicial.
A171622
- March 12, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Mark Goldrosen
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a new sentencing hearing because appellant presented sufficient proof of childhood trauma so as to trigger the lower-term presumption. The lower court made no findings that imposing the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, yet it imposed the middle term.
A173420
- March 11, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Ellen Ivens-Duran
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal struck a $41 fine that the trial court erroneously imposed and stayed. The trial court had imposed the fine under PC 1202.5, which authorizes fines for enumerated theft offenses but not resisting or deterring an officer to which appellant pled no contest.
A173712
- March 10, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Suzanne Davidson
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition, Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal agreed with mother that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under WIC 300(b)(1)(a) was legally and factually insufficient. The jurisdiction and disposition orders were reversed and the court was directed to dismiss the dependency petition.
A172714
- March 9, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Stephanie Marie Adraktas
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck an electronics search condition as invalid under Lent. There was no connection between the use of electronics and the underlying conduct, and there was “no evidence whatsoever” that appellant’s use of electronics “might reflect on his potential for future criminality.” The Court rejected the government’s proposed modification because the condition would still satisfy the Lent factors.