[Published Decision] The Court of Appeal reversed the order terminating jurisdiction over appellant, a nonminor dependent. The Court found that the juvenile court failed to give any consideration to whether termination of dependency was in his best interests.
A165931
- May 23, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Deborah Dentler
- Categories: Dependency
A163966
- May 23, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Theresa Stevenson
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appel struck a firearm enhancement because firearm use was an element of appellant’s offense. The Court then remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term where the defendant experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense.
A166150
- May 17, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: Linda Votaw
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
[Published Opinion] The jurisdictional findings and orders as to father, as well as the related dispositional orders regarding removal and substance abuse testing and treatment are reversed. The matter was remanded to the juvenile court with directions to dismiss the petition as to father. The Court found that even though mother did not appeal, father’s challenges to the jurisdictional allegations were not moot as they formed the basis for the dispositional orders.
A166315
- May 16, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: James Donnelly-Saalfield
- Categories: Delinquency
In light of recent amendments to W&I 707, the Court of Appeal held that the minor was entitled to a new juvenile transfer hearing because, at the time of his initial hearing, the burden of proof was lower. In so holding, the Court found that the amendments to W&I 707 are an ameliorative change in the law that applies retroactively.
A163734
- May 16, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Randall Conner
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170, which, among other things, created a presumption in favor of a low prison term for certain youthful offenders.
A163243
- May 11, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Geoff Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of two amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term under certain circumstances.
A165126
- May 9, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Wilder Lee
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal reversed the true findings on the allegation that appellant had suffered out-of-state convictions for serious or violent felonies. The court reasoned that the elements of robbery under Washington law are broader than under California law, and that the trial court could not supply the missing element by making findings of fact based on documents that supplied the factual basis for appellant’s plea, where appellant admitted only that there was a factual basis for the plea and did not admit the truth of any of the allegations in the documents.
A164791
- May 4, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Sangeeta Sinha
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that Penal Code section 290.008(a) did not authorize the juvenile court to require appellant to register as a sex offender because appellant was not committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
A164002
- April 28, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: John Steinberg
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which now requires that circumstances in aggravation used to justify imposition of the upper term be found true by the jury, admitted by the defendant, or based on prior convictions evidenced by a certified record of conviction. As for whether the matter should be remanded, the Court acknowledged that the Courts of Appeal are currently split regarding the applicable standard of review, but nevertheless remanded after noting it would be required under every approach, apart from People v. Flores (2022) 755 Cal.App.5th 495.
A164064
- April 26, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: Leila Moncharsh
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck the term “improper sexual relations” as used in an electronics search condition on the ground that it was unconstitutionally vague and unnecessary to comport with the trial court’s stated intent – to determine whether the minor was engaging in solicitation and prostitution.