The Court of Appeal found that a probation condition requiring a minor to “attend school regularly” was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to provide sufficient notice as to whether receiving alternative educational services would constitute a violation. The court, therefore, modified the condition as follows: “Minor shall attend school (to include, as appropriate, a district or private school, online learning institution or at-home instruction) regularly and maintain satisfactory grades in the grading system utilized by the minor’s school in a manner consistent with her physical and medical condition, and obey school rules.” Although the Court noted that this issue did not present a pure question of law, the Court exercised its discretion and addressed this issue given the important role education plays in the juvenile rehabilitation process.
A152019
- November 2, 2018
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Cheryl Cotterill
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
A154005
- October 17, 2018
- Attorney: Julie Braden
- Categories: Dependency, Review Hearings
The Court of Appeal reversed the finding of the juvenile court at the six-month review hearing that reasonable services had been provided to mother noting that mother was not responsible for the delay in receiving services. The Court also rejected the claim of the County that the reasonable services finding was not appealable. The Court found that mother was aggrieved and the reasonable services finding was appealable even if an additional six months of services had already been ordered for mother.
A148032
- October 5, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Juliana Drous
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Court of Appeal stayed sentence for one assault and enhancements under Penal Code section 654 where totality of record showed jury based conviction on same act supporting mayhem. Court also remanded for exercise of discretion as to firearm enhancements.
A151488
- October 5, 2018
- Division: One
- Attorney: Ozro Childs
- Categories: Credits, Criminal
Court of Appeal found that defendant, convicted of violent felony, was entitled to 15% presentence conduct credit. This was not subject to forfeiture.
A149469
- August 22, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Stephen Bedrick
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
Court of Appeal reversed murder and affirmed attempted murder. Trial court erred in refusing to instruct jury on lesser included offense of attempted murder where there was substantial evidence that appellant may not have aided actual shooter or knew that the person he aided was acting in concert with the shooter. The trial court also erred by simply directing the jury back to the already-given instructions after the jury asked if it mattered who fired the fatal shot where there was substantial evidence appellant did not aid person who fired fatal shot.
A153124
- August 21, 2018
- Attorney: Elizabeth Klippi
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
In this appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the matter to the juvenile court for compliance with the inquiry and notice provisions of the ICWA. The Agency conceded that limited remand was necessary to inquire of all maternal relatives for whom the Agency had contact information about their knowledge of possible Indian ancestry.
A153000
- July 26, 2018
- Attorney: Karriem Baker
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
In this appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Court of Appeal found non compliance with the ICWA stating that there was nothing in the record to suggest the Department made any inquiries. The Department filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot arguing that the juvenile court had subsequently made an order finding compliance with ICWA. The Court denied the motion finding that the juvenile court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in revisiting the termination order while it was being reviewed on appeal.
A146857
- June 12, 2018
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Stephen Bedrick
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
Court of Appeal reversed second degree murder conviction based on two trial court errors: 1) Evid Code section 352. Trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of an uncharged carjacking where the carjacking victim had not identified appellant and the carjacking had little to no probative value to issues at trial, but the evidence was extremely prejudicial as appellant was driving the car the next day which implicated him in the carjacking after the fact and suggested he was engaged in repeated, violent criminal activity. 2) Evid. Code section 1103. Trial court abused discretion by excluding all evidence of victim’s violent character, which gave a false aura of peaceableness. Also court lacked a basis for excluding some of the evidence where it did not hear proffered testimony. The evidence was prejudicial where there was enough uncertainty about [appellant’s] role in the shooting to heighten the importance of evidence that may have influenced the jury’s general perceptions of him.
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.
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).