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.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A153000
- July 26, 2018
- Attorney: Karriem Baker
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
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.
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).
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.
A151473
- April 13, 2018
- Division: One
- Attorney: Cheryl Cotterill
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Sentencing
Court of Appeal struck maximum term of confinement, imposed where the minor was not removed from parental custody as set out in Welf. & Inst Code section 726, subd(d)(1).
A148539
- April 11, 2018
- Division: One
- Attorney: Richard Such
- Categories: Criminal, Right to Counsel
Court of Appeal reversed no contest plea (lewd acts upon a child under 14, rape, multiple victim allegation) resulting in 35 years-to-life sentence, based on the trial court abusing its discretion in denying request to discharge retained counsel and court failing to properly advise defendant about the consequences of plea. The erroneous denial of right to discharge retained counsel is presumptively prejudicial and automatically requires reversal.
A151369
- April 10, 2018
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Violet Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the DJF placement due to a lack of evidence of benefit to the minor. Although the probation report asserted that DJF was the best placement to address the needs of the minor and it can be presumed that assertion was based on some knowledge of the DJF, the “unexplained and unsupported assertion of possible benefit is not evidence of reasonable, credible, and of solid value” from which the juvenile court could make an informed decision. Remanded for a new disposition hearing.
A146956
- April 3, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Maggie Shrout
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Court of Appeal agreed with reasoning in People v. Abdallah (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 736., that it was error to impose Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b), one-year prior prison term enhancement after underlying felony conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor. Noting that once felony is reduced to a misdemeanor, the imposition of the enhancement would be contrary to voter intent in enacting Prop 47.
A151853
- March 29, 2018
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Janet Saalfield
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition, Jurisdiction
Mother raised multiple issues on appeal from the trial court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders. The Court of Appeal agreed with mother that the visitation order stating “as arranged by the parents” effectively delegated to father the discretion to allow visitation. The visitation order was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
A151003
- March 29, 2018
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Linda Conrad
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
The Court of Appeal reversed the order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights due to the failure of the Department to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Department sent notice to some of the Sioux and Apache tribes but not all of them. The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the Department to notify the remaining Sioux and Apache tribes.